Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

I would strongly recommend *not* making a formal difference between 'x>y'
and 'x>=y', or at least not giving examples that rely on there being a
difference between them. This is a notoriously difficult situation to
distinguish between, and makes certain types of simulation approaches
impossible to accomplish. Whenever I accidentally put situations like that
into the SBML Test Suite, I'm always asked to take them back out again.

Also, when the 'order' attribute matters, put it into the example. If the
order attribute never matters in the examples you have created, say that
explicitly. I can't tell from the examples you give if:

reset A when B>3, A = B
reset B when B>3, B = 1

is the same as

reset B when B>3, B = 1
reset A when B>3, A = B

(i.e. if the hidden 'order' attributes are different) or not.

-Lucian

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Mike Cooling
<mtcooling.research AT gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear CellML Community,
>
> The 'Specification Writing Group' is proud to present an updated draft
> Specification for CellML 2.0.
>
> This second draft aims primarily to clarify the semantics of the
> new-in-2.0 'reset rules'. The appropriate section of the specification has
> been adjusted and the new Release Notes now include an Appendix containing
> reset rule examples with expected model behaviour.
>
> The exclusion of integrals was also reconsidered. At this time, support
> for integrals is not part of CellML 2.0. This decision could be revised
> with community needs.
>
> We invite community feedback on the May 2017 draft Specification.
>
> The explanatory release note (May 2017 draft) can be found here:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7o2fHkRhadEQ3c4bnFXRlpBSUk
>
> The specification itself (May 2017 draft) can be found here:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7o2fHkRhadEVTBacExBb0tnTDg
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mike Cooling
> on behalf of the CellML 2.0 Specification Writing Group
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mike Cooling
> <mtcooling.research AT gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:51 AM
> Subject: CellML 2.0 Draft Specification
> To:
> cellml-discussion AT lists.cellml.org
>
>
> Dear CellML Community,
>
> The '2.0 Specification Writing Group' is proud to present a draft
> specification for CellML 2.0.
>
> Unlike the CellML 1.x specifications, the CellML 2.0 specification is
> written in a formal, "normative" style. It consists largely of a list of
> interlocking rules. This makes it difficult to meaningfully 'skim' the
> document, so for your convenience we present a Release Note highlighting
> the differences between CellML 1.1 and CellML 2.0. We recommend starting
> with that Note which can be found here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7o2fHkRhadEeG10cDlIZkNsQk0
>
> The specification itself can be found here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7o2fHkRhadEUnp4Zkx4ZTRkZXc
>
> We invite community feedback on this draft specification. We are also
> seeking more information, specifically, on the usefulness of the ability to
> include definite integrals in the mathematics (currently not in CellML
> 2.0). If you can provide details of models that need that feature, or wish
> to provide any other feedback on the Specification, please do so via this
> mailing list, or, if you prefer, directly to my email address.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike Cooling, on behalf of the CellML 2.0 Specification Writing Group.
>
>

---

• [cellml-discussion] CellML 2.0 Draft Specification - May 2017 version, Mike Cooling, 05/31/2017
  • Re: [cellml-discussion] CellML 2.0 Draft Specification - May 2017 version, Lucian Smith, 05/31/2017
    • Re: [cellml-discussion] CellML 2.0 Draft Specification - May 2017 version, Mike Cooling, 05/31/2017
      • Re: [cellml-discussion] CellML 2.0 Draft Specification - May 2017 version, Lucian Smith, 05/31/2017

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.