Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Hi Alan,

the recommendation for units being defined through an import would only
affect any system that currently implements or reads CellML 1.1. There
is nothing stopping this being optional to make things tidier for those
cases where it may make sense. I certainly wouldn't want to specify
that a CellML compliant reader would implicitly define such an import.

Something I'd like to push as we bring ontologies and typing to CellML
is standardization of various axes such as units such that
specializations are always traceable back to a common set that everyone
agrees on. The import construct references an imported resource by
URI; it should be a simple matter to assert that a model imports a
known and accepted set of units.

The freshness aspect of imported units is a question that applies more
generally to the import of both models and units. I have a couple of
concerns with the way import is structured in CellML 1.1, I'll outline
these in another email.

cheers
Matt


On 6/08/2004, at 6:31 PM, Alan Garny wrote:

> Dear Matt,
>
> Just a quick thought on your suggestion...
>
> I have yet to go through the CellML 1.1 specification. As far as I can
> remember from CellML 1.0, each variable must have a unit associated to
> it
> and, in our software, we re-inforce that rule by having all the
> standard
> units "hard coded". In other words, the user can use them straight
> away and
> there is no need to declare them in the first place or, for instance,
> to
> import them (using CellML 1.1).
>
> Now, from your second example, I can see a reason why one would do as
> you
> suggest. This said, any software that currently implements the standard
> units the way we do it will have to be amended, so that the standard
> units
> don't appear as being re-declared. Another concern is that someone may
> not
> have your latest version of the standard units. How do you deal with
> that?
>
> In conclusion, though I appreciate your original concern, I would
> personally
> stick to the way we have done it so far. Our software being CellML 1.0
> conformant, the user knows that s/he has access to these standard
> units, no
> matter what, and doesn't need to think about importing them, or make
> sure
> that s/he has the latest standard units file. Should that list of
> standard
> units get new additions, I would expect that to be done through the
> release
> of a new version of the CellML specification.
>
> Cheers, Alan.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> cellml-discussion-bounces AT cellml.org
>> [mailto:cellml-discussion-bounces AT cellml.org]
>> On Behalf Of
>> Matt Halstead
>> Sent: 06 August 2004 00:50
>> To: For those interested in contributing to the development of CellML.
>> Subject: [cellml-discussion] cellml units
>>
>> Section 5.2.1 of the cellml 1.1 specification
>> (http://www.cellml.org/public/specification/20030930/
>> cellml_specification.html#tab_units_cellml_units_dictionary)
>> describes the dictionary of standard units. Since we now
>> have imports, is there any reason not to create a SI base
>> unit library that declares each of these units in this table
>> as a base_unit, and which modellers should probably import by default?
>>
>> A case example where this is useful in application
>> development is an editor application that forces a user to
>> select a units for each
>> variable. If these units in table 2 were represented as a
>> library and
>> imported, then we can simplify the method for building units
>> available for a variable.
>>
>> Another use-case is providing a mechanism to curate this
>> table of units, we would be free to add new definitions,
>> annotate them with RDF, and then argue about them.
>>
>> just a thought.
>>
>> cheers
>> Matt
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cellml-discussion mailing list
>> cellml-discussion AT cellml.org
>> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion AT cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion

---

• [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Alan Garny, 08/06/2004
  • [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Matt Halstead, 08/06/2004
    • [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Alan Garny, 08/06/2004
      • [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Matt Halstead, 08/07/2004
        • [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Alan Garny, 08/07/2004
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Warren Hedley, 08/07/2004

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.