Hi Andre, Support for models with parameter uncertainty is pretty urgent in relation to grants but I'm in your hands re optimal strategy for getting there.
Cheers, Peter -------------------------- Sent using BlackBerry From: David Nickerson [mailto:david.nicker...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 10:36 PM To: CellML Discussion List <cellml-discussion@cellml.org> Subject: [cellml-discussion] Solicitation of feedback on CellML 1.2 Dear all, At the 5th International CellML Workshop<http://www.cellml.org/community/events/workshop/2011/>, we discussed the main list of features that were desirable to have in CellML 1.2. The CellML Editorial Board has been discussing the implementation of these features in regard to the next version of the CellML standard. Early on, we decided that the entire list of features arising from the workshop was too broad and far reaching to accommodate an easy transition from CellML 1.1 to CellML 1.2 in a timely manner. We have therefore selected a subset of these features which we feel address immediate shortcomings in the CellML 1.1 specification and introduce a minimal set of often requested new features. Tracker item 55<https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=55> shows a detailed overview of our current plans. This is by no means meant to be the final composition of CellML 1.2, but it reflects the current view of the editorial board as to the types of models users wish to encode in CellML and what is possible to implement in both the specification and software tools. Jonathan Cooper presented our thoughts on CellML 1.2 at the recent COMBINE 2012 meeting<http://co.mbine.org/events/COMBINE_2012/agenda>. Please see the slides and video of the presentation to get a more consumable view of the proposed changes. This email is to solicit specific feedback from the community regarding the subset of changes that we have selected for inclusion in CellML 1.2. The CellML 1.2 specification will mark a significant change in the way the CellML standard is specified, and we hope that this change will enable a more rapid process for standardising new features that modellers require in order to encode and share their models using CellML. From tracker item 55<https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55>, we would like to highlight the following main changes that we think should be in CellML 1.2: * Remove reaction element (tracker item 49<https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49>); * Remove the directional aspect of connections (tracker item 337<https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337>); * Replace grouping with a simplified encapsulation-only mechanism (tracker item 356<https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356>); * Delayed variables (introduction of the evaluatedAt operator with reduced functionality to allow infinitesimal delays and initial values) (tracker item 70<https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70>). In addition, we specifically ask for feedback on the issue of moving to MathML 3.0 (tracker item 67<https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67>) and the inclusion of stochastic variation in models (tracker item 2809<https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2809>). The editors generally agree that switching to MathML 3.0 at this time provides too little benefit (mathematical clarity) for the cost involved in making the change (tool support, interoperability with other exchange formats). While the proposal for stochastic variation is fairly mature, we feel that it requires further work to meet the requirements for inclusion in the CellML standard. We also think that given sufficient impetus from the community this could be one of the first proposals to pass through the new development process for CellML. The editorial board will shortly be releasing our proposed guidelines for the development of the CellML standard. As mentioned above, we hope this new process will allow new features (such as for stochastic variation in models) to move more quickly from feature requests through to changes in the standard specifications. Thanks, The CellML Editorial Board.
_______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://lists.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
