Dear all,
I'd like to comment on the last meeting minutes, particularly on the
metadata specification comments made by Andre:
* Andre said that SED-ML does not yet support everything that we
need to do for simulation and graphing.
I agree that SED-ML still is at quite an early stage and might not cover
everything needed.
However, even if the structure of SED-ML does not offer particular
constructs for some of your needs, you are allowed (by definition of the
SED-ML schema) to attach annotations to *any* SED-ML element. Thus, you
could "extend" SED-ML towards supporting whatever additional needs you
might have for information to put in the simulation description file.
Do you think that would be sufficient? As Nicolas mentioned, that would
actually be a nice benchmark for us to see in what way SED-ML needs to
be extended (certainly by what you would put in the annotations often).
* Andrew said that we are still trying to convince the SED-ML group
to separate out graphing and simulation.
I can say that SED-ML is *not* about graphing at all - in the sense that
I understand graphing. SED-ML should provide the description of the data
that is used to create the output, and also how these data relate, e.g.
for a 2 dimensional plot you would have to specify what to plot against
what (x and y axes). Let me cite Nicolas again from an earlier mail:
"E.g. we can create a report {time, var1, var2}, but some information
will only emerge if we "plot" var1 versus var2. In some sense the
relationship between var1 and var2 representation is part of the
post-processing."
* Andre said that you might want to change some of the graphing
metadata to get different graphs from the same simulation, or vice
versa.
If we are talking about running one simulation and creating a number of
different graphs (say, many 2D plots) from that simulation, this is
already possible in SED-ML right now. All you have to do is to define a
number of (what we call) data generators, referring to the
variables/parameters you want to use for your output. Then you can
define as many outputs as you want, referring to the same or different
data generators and to the same of different simulation setups.
If you look at the example given in the publication of CMSB 2008, on
page 9/10 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n67n137071431xt7/), we
defined a data generator called "time" and we use it to create 2
different curves from one single simulation (only the x axis is varying
here, using 2 different models).
If we, however, are talking about producing the same graph one time with
a red line, one time with a green line - those things are not part of
SED-ML core information, and they should go to the above mentioned
annotations.
* Peter said that we want to encourage cooperation, and use accepted
standards if they exist.
I cannot tell you how much we would like to see CellML using SED-ML :-)
I know that we do progress pretty slowly, and I am very sorry for that.
* Andre said that the minimal information standard should be out soon.
Maybe a word on that: We are currently (and have been for a while...
slow again, I know) working on writing up the MIASE guidelines. In my
opinion, we do make good progress and I think that we have come to quite
a good consensus already. So, there is hope that "soon" won't take too long.
I am happy to answer all the questions you might have!
Many greetings from Rostock,
Dagmar
Dougal Cowan wrote:
I have put the minutes from this Wednesday's meeting up at:
http://www.cellml.org/community/meeting/minutes/2009/10.07
Dougal
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4488 (20091007) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
cellml-discussion mailing list
cellml-discussion@cellml.org
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
_______________________________________________
cellml-discussion mailing list
cellml-discussion@cellml.org
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
