Re: SBML survey: should consistency ofunitsbe required?
17 Dec '07 14:39
Stefan Hoops wrote:
> This means if we want that units MUST match we need to make things
> easier in SBML. The first thing would be to require that parameters
> have the default units dimensionless and that numbers are also
> dimensionless. In addition the unit "undefined" must be removed.
> If we do all this, MUST match is clearly the right way to go. This would
> mean that we can not use all models as they currently appear in
> publication instead they need to be curated so that the units
> match. This means introducing parameters with the value 1 and the
> proper units wherever needed. This is what the authors did without
> thinking about it anyway ;)
No, no. We discussed that in length and in great details at the
Hackathon. Numbers cannot be always dimentionless. What about an
Hill-like function (something used a fair amount of time by the
community of modeller, so we cannot dismiss it):
[X]^n / ( 1 + [X]^n)
1 cannot be dimensionless if [X] is not dimensionless.
And please, everybody, don't ask me to write:
([X]/p)^n / ( 1 + ([X]/p)^n)
with p = 1 M ...
Nicolas LE NOVERE, Computational Neurobiology,
EMBL-EBI, Wellcome-Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK
Tel: +44(0)1223494521, Fax: 468, Mob: +44(0)7833147074 Skype:n.lenovere
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~lenov, AIM: nlenovere, MSN: firstname.lastname@example.org
To manage your sbml-discuss list subscription, visit
For a web interface to the sbml-discuss mailing list, visit
For questions or feedback about the sbml-discuss list,