Re: [cellml-discussion] Include_in_CellML_1.2 requested: [Tracker Item 153] Allow multiple connections between the same pair of components
Semantically I think this is fine and theoretically does not change the meaning of connections. It's important to highlight that software developers will need to: 1) relax the validation constraint for the existing rule (i.e. only one connection between any two components) 2) understand that component_1 and component_2 of map_components can change order over connection elements between the same components (some software may have used the current notion of there being only one connection and one order to component_1 and component_2 to optimise in memory object references) I think this could have some pronounced effects on some software. I wouldn't mind reworking the connection syntax altogether ... but that's another proposal. On 8/29/07, Andrew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Are there any objections to marking this as something we should include in CellML 1.2? Best regards, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for Include_in_CellML_1.2: Tracker Item 153: Allow multiple connections between the same pair of components http://bowmore.elyt.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=153 --- Additional Comments from Andrew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Section 3.2.4 of CellML 1.1 states, in the second sentence of the second paragraph: Only one connection may be created between any given pair of components in a model. This is a fairly pointless restriction from all fronts: * From a model authors perspective, it creates a burden on the author to consolidate all their connections which may have been created for different purposes, and current model authors claim that such consolidation is time consuming and error prone. * From a model readability perspective, it is also burdensome because connections between variables may not be in a logical order (this is less of an issue if tools are used, but the point still holds). * Implementation experience suggests that it is no harder to allow multiple connections between the same pair of components when writing simulation software, but the extra constraint imposes more work on developers when writing tools which try to validate the model. To fix this, we could simply drop the first two sentences of the second paragraph of Section 3.2.4, and perhaps replace them with a short explanation. ___ 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 ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
[cellml-discussion] Include_in_CellML_1.2 requested: [Tracker Item 153] Allow multiple connections between the same pair of components
Andrew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for Include_in_CellML_1.2: Tracker Item 153: Allow multiple connections between the same pair of components http://bowmore.elyt.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=153 --- Additional Comments from Andrew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Section 3.2.4 of CellML 1.1 states, in the second sentence of the second paragraph: Only one connection may be created between any given pair of components in a model. This is a fairly pointless restriction from all fronts: * From a model authors perspective, it creates a burden on the author to consolidate all their connections which may have been created for different purposes, and current model authors claim that such consolidation is time consuming and error prone. * From a model readability perspective, it is also burdensome because connections between variables may not be in a logical order (this is less of an issue if tools are used, but the point still holds). * Implementation experience suggests that it is no harder to allow multiple connections between the same pair of components when writing simulation software, but the extra constraint imposes more work on developers when writing tools which try to validate the model. To fix this, we could simply drop the first two sentences of the second paragraph of Section 3.2.4, and perhaps replace them with a short explanation. ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
Re: [cellml-discussion] Include_in_CellML_1.2 requested: [Tracker Item 153] Allow multiple connections between the same pair of components
Agreed, but we should then also delete (?) the second point of rule 3.4.5.4 (Proper use of the component_1 and component_2 attributes for the map_components element). Alan. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cellml-discussion- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Miller Sent: 29 August 2007 01:13 To: CellML Discussion List Subject: Re: [cellml-discussion] Include_in_CellML_1.2 requested: [Tracker Item 153] Allow multiple connections between the same pair of components Hi all, Are there any objections to marking this as something we should include in CellML 1.2? Best regards, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for Include_in_CellML_1.2: Tracker Item 153: Allow multiple connections between the same pair of components http://bowmore.elyt.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=153 --- Additional Comments from Andrew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Section 3.2.4 of CellML 1.1 states, in the second sentence of the second paragraph: Only one connection may be created between any given pair of components in a model. This is a fairly pointless restriction from all fronts: * From a model authors perspective, it creates a burden on the author to consolidate all their connections which may have been created for different purposes, and current model authors claim that such consolidation is time consuming and error prone. * From a model readability perspective, it is also burdensome because connections between variables may not be in a logical order (this is less of an issue if tools are used, but the point still holds). * Implementation experience suggests that it is no harder to allow multiple connections between the same pair of components when writing simulation software, but the extra constraint imposes more work on developers when writing tools which try to validate the model. To fix this, we could simply drop the first two sentences of the second paragraph of Section 3.2.4, and perhaps replace them with a short explanation. ___ 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 ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
