Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

> 2) tabulationStepSize does not belong in the specification, so it should
> be removed. Software such as PCEnv should preferably not interpolate
> onto a grid, but if it does, this should be defined elsewhere, and not
> in the simulation metadata specification.

I'm not too sure whether this belongs in the simulation metadata or not,
but I think it highlights that maybe people have differing views on what
we are trying to achieve with this "simulation metadata".

Personally, I think that Andrew's abstract on the simulation metadata
specification is pretty good. We basically want to provide the
information required for a certain set of results to be generated from a
specified model - i.e. model + simulation metadata = results.

For that process to be completely defined, don't we need to be able to
describe the bound variable values at which model results will be
generated? How else can you be sure that running the same simulation in
two different pieces of software (or even multiple runs with the same
software) will give you comparable results? Unless you are going to be
happy matching curves or other types of interpolation/analysis
introducing further error, don't you need to have the model results at
exactly the same values of the bound variable(s)?

Maybe the use of the tabulationStepSize predicate (?) is not the best
way to describe the set of values at which you want to have access to
the model results, but its certainly sufficient for everything I have
been doing. Perhaps we need some better way to specify the range of
bound variable(s) values that we need results for, but the specification
of a start value, an end value, and a tabulation step size seems a
reasonable start to me.

Maybe its just the name that people don't like? I can't think of
anything more suitable at the moment, but maybe someone has an idea?

I guess the more I think about it, the more I think this information
should definitely be in the simulation metadata, assuming that my view
of the simulation metadata providing all the required information to
reproduce a specific set of results from a specified model is valid.

I would be interested to hear alternatives on where this sort of
information should be provided?


Andre.

---

• [cellml-discussion] Summary of simulation metadata meeting, Andrew Miller, 08/22/2006
  • [cellml-discussion] Summary of simulation metadata meeting, David Nickerson, 08/22/2006
    • [cellml-discussion] Summary of simulation metadata meeting, Shane Blackett, 08/23/2006
      • [cellml-discussion] Summary of simulation metadata meeting, David Nickerson, 08/23/2006
        • [cellml-discussion] Summary of simulation metadata meeting, Shane Blackett, 08/23/2006
          • [cellml-discussion] Summary of simulation metadata meeting, David Nickerson, 08/23/2006
          • [cellml-discussion] Summary of simulation metadata meeting, Andrew Miller, 08/30/2006

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.