First login?
Lost password?
 
 
cellml-discussion AT lists.cellml.org 
CellML Discussion List

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] Precise semantics of generateFlattenedModel()


Chronological Thread 
  • From: d.nickerson at auckland.ac.nz (David Nickerson)
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] Precise semantics of generateFlattenedModel()
  • Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:40:06 +1300
Is there a case for maybe a really simple generateFlattenedModel() in
the core API which returns a single XML document containing only
elements in the CellML 1.0 namespace and simply ignores all other
namespaces (external and metadata). Given one of the main uses I can see
for such a method is to take a CellML 1.1 model and export it so a
CellML 1.0 capable application can use the model, this would seem to be
a useful method.

Then a more complex and general method could be provided as either a
supplementary service or an example illustrating the use of the CellML
1.1 API.

Andrew Miller wrote:
> Quoting David Nickerson <d.nickerson at auckland.ac.nz>:
>
>> Am I correct in reading this as saying that metadata contained in
>> imported components/variables/units... would not be present in the
>> flattened model?
>>
>> If so, is it a bad thing to be discarding such metadata in the
>> flattening process??
>
> This does create some problems for assigning cmeta:id values(which have to
> be
> unique in every given XML file, but not across imports). However, we could
> scan
> the base model and all elements added to it for cmeta:id values, and where
> we
> find them, add them to a map. In addition, any elements added to the model
> under construction could be scanned for cmeta:id elements, and where we find
> them, they are checked for uniqueness, renamed if they are already in the
> map,
> and we search for an rdf:Description in the imported file. If we find one,
> we
> add the rdf:Description into any existing rdf:RDF in the model being
> constructed, or into a new rdf:RDF if there are no existing ones.
>
> However, this is technically not a good approach because there are several
> ways
> of expressing the same RDF, some of which delegate out parts of the RDF to
> separate resources using rdf:resource rather than creating a single XML
> hierarchy. I don't think many repository models actually do this, but it
> still
> seems wrong to decide which data to include depending on the form of the
> RDF.
>
> Given the apparent complexity of the semantics of getFlattenedModel(), I am
> starting to think that it might be better provided as a supplementary
> service
> rather than as part of the core CellML API, possibly with a more complex API
> that gives the application more control of the process.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page