CellML Discussion List

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] Proposal: BCP for including external code inCellML models


Chronological Thread 
  • From: david.nickerson at nus.edu.sg (David Nickerson)
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] Proposal: BCP for including external code inCellML models
  • Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:45:17 +0800


> 3) Do you agree with the basic premise of the proposal, that is that
> it is better to have a model which is partly expressed in CellML, than
> to have a model which is entirely expressed in a more general
> programming language?

yes.

> 4) Do the best practice guidelines for CellML authors adequately
> protect the utility of CellML as a model interchange format?

I think so.

> 5) Does the proposed approach fit well with the design of CellML?

not really. The design philosophy of CellML is to utilise existing
standards where possible. I seem to recall the original intention for
the inclusion of required procedural code in a model was through the
csymbol mechanism you describe, but the code referenced is defined in a
standard format - with ECMAScript the preferred choice at that time. And
I see now there is a ECMAScript for XML extension, E4X, which might be
useful?

By using a standard format for the external code (particularly if
available support for that format is good), you could reasonably expect
multiple applications to support your model. Although, similarly, if the
support you describe is built into the CellML API (CCGS?) then you could
also expect multiple applications to support a given model with external
code.

Maybe some examples of where the use of external code is required would
be useful?


David.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page