So one way out to avoid having to hope that software does the right thing is to make it compulsory that there is units consistency for each dimension across all variables (defined in variable elements) in a CellML component so that the only units conversions that need to take place are at the interfaces. Quantities that are dimensionless after simplification aren't going to affect dimensional analysis of the math, so we would be safe there.
On 4/23/07, David Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So where does the problem lie? This says that all you supposedly > > dimensionless constants should have units. Does it need to be clearer > > that you are not allowed to simplify them out into dimensionless > > yourself? > > yes - I think this is the issue. Also that tools shouldn't simplify them > into dimensionless before doing the multiplication and/or units > consistency checking. > > > Also. What does it matter that some software simplifies them out > > before multiplicating them? So long as it checks units consistency > > prior to simplifying them (if it really needs to do that anyway) then > > the result should be the same. > > yep - that is the key. The units must be there when an application > checks units consistency. > > > Andre. > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > cellml-discussion@cellml.org > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
