Nicolas Le Novere wrote:
> Maybe those modules are useless. Maybe we should go all the way, and make
> encapsulation and model composition part of the core (and use RDF for the
> whole of SBML not the annotations ...). This is a discussion I would very
> much see unfolding here. But even if we do not, I still think we need to be
> able to split a model into manageable bits and pieces
I personally don't particularly like using RDF for all of SBML instead
of annotations. In my opinion, it is simple enough to create model
composition software that will read the RDF and harmonize the IDs
between models. Requiring the ID to be the same in different sub-models
would make it easier to code simulation software. While the model
composition software would be simple enough it would require a remapping
of IDs prior to simulation, adding additional complexity for people
writing new codes.
I understand that a wealth of software that uses SBML out there is very
full-featured, but I would guess that there are more one-off codes out
there that do just one small thing that the user wants. Allowing
simplification of the one-off codes seems as though it would help SBML
in the long run.
| 
17 Jul '07 06:27
