Re: [cellml-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to create more re-usable metabolic models

2008-02-03 Thread Justin Marsh
One thing is bugging me: I'll illustrate by means of an example: We would be inferring that the set fluxes consists of only the elements {f1,f2,f3} from the three statements: f1 in fluxes, f2 in fluxes, f3 in fluxes. But if fluxes={f1,f2,f3,f4,f5}, that would still be consistent with the

Re: [cellml-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to create more re-usable metabolic models

2008-02-01 Thread Randall Britten
-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to create more re-usable metabolic models Hi all, To aid in working out what features we should include in CellML 1.2, I have been looking into one of the major difficulties with creating re-usable metabolic models at the moment: that to compute

Re: [cellml-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to create more re-usable metabolic models

2008-01-30 Thread Michael Cooling
First just to check that in the the connection elements 'flux' should be 'fluxes'? For example, 'substance_a' component contains no variable 'flux', I assume you meant the set_of_lambda_of_real 'fluxes'? I think I like this! When will it be released? ;-P I don't know enough about the lambda

Re: [cellml-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to create more re-usable metabolic models

2008-01-30 Thread Andrew Miller
Michael Cooling wrote: First just to check that in the the connection elements 'flux' should be 'fluxes'? For example, 'substance_a' component contains no variable 'flux', I assume you meant the set_of_lambda_of_real 'fluxes'? Thanks for pointing that out - it is hard to validate

Re: [cellml-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to create more re-usable metabolic models

2008-01-30 Thread Michael Cooling
because if connections don't have directionality, then it makes no sense in the language to say that a connection is from A to B, as opposed to from B to A, and we wouldn't want to force users to duplicate information and provide both Oops I didn't mean to imply directionality. I shouldn't

Re: [cellml-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to create more re-usable metabolic models

2008-01-30 Thread Andrew Miller
Michael Cooling wrote: because if connections don't have directionality, then it makes no sense in the language to say that a connection is from A to B, as opposed to from B to A, and we wouldn't want to force users to duplicate information and provide both Oops I didn't mean to

Re: [cellml-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to create more re-usable metabolic models

2008-01-30 Thread Andrew Miller
Michael Cooling wrote: if both state variables have the same initial values and rates (which they would... why should they have the same initial values? I agree if they did then it makes no difference to the correctness of the model but it seems very possible to create a model of

Re: [cellml-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to create more re-usable metabolic models

2008-01-30 Thread Michael Cooling
If two models contradict each other (such as by each stating a initial value for concentrations of the same species, or a different mechanism for the exact same reaction), then this contradiction has to be fixed before the models can be composed. It's not just about composition - during

[cellml-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to create more re-usable metabolic models

2008-01-29 Thread Andrew Miller
Hi all, To aid in working out what features we should include in CellML 1.2, I have been looking into one of the major difficulties with creating re-usable metabolic models at the moment: that to compute a derivative, you need to know all the fluxes, but when a model is extended, new fluxes