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

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] A typed lambda calculus system for CellML


Chronological Thread 
  • From: ak.miller at auckland.ac.nz (Andrew Miller)
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] A typed lambda calculus system for CellML
  • Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:48:19 +1200
Randall Owen wrote:
> Andrew:
>
> This seems like a very good idea. How much work has actually been done in
> this area?
>
Hi Randy,

I presume you are only asking about work in relation to CellML? The
document I linked is pretty much it in terms of actual written up
documents... once we allow more time for feedback we can actually start
drafting specifications on this.

If we are not restricting this discussion to CellML, then it is worth
noting that typed lambda calculus based systems have been a fairly
popular area of study, and there are theorem proving environments based
on similar ideas (Coq is a good example of such an environment). I
expect that most CellML tools will not want to be as general as this...
to start with, they will probably only support the TLCS equivalents of
what can be done with CellML 1.1. The way we can allow this without
hurting interoperability is to define 'secondary specifications' which
further limit CellML for a class of tools.

It is also worth noting that OpenMath also has a document on a type
system based on similar ideas.

Best regards,
Andrew

> Best regards,
> Randy Owen
> Software Engineering Group
> Oxford
>
> In message <4887CBC5.4000106 at auckland.ac.nz> CellML Discussion List
> <cellml-discussion at cellml.org> writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have been looking into how we could define a typed lambda calculus
>> system in CellML, and have written up a document to collect ideas on this:
>> http://www.cellml.org/Members/miller/outline-of-a-typed-lambda-calculus-system
>>
>> This document does not yet aim to be a formal specification, but
>> instead, aims to outline all the ideas that we could use as a basis for
>> writing up the relevant parts of the formal specification.
>>
>> Please feel free to discuss this and / or suggest improvements. I have
>> enabled commenting on the document in Plone for people with an account,
>> and this mailing list would also be a suitable place for discussion of
>> the document to take place.
>>
>> Of particular interest is ideas about how this could be applied, and of
>> anything that we could potentially be missing (for example, whether this
>> is sufficient to support stochastic simulations with the addition of a
>> few operators, or if it needs more fundamental changes to allow for
>> that. This is something I am still looking into and would welcome ideas
>> on).
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page