Forums

curoli> If size was the only issue, you could have that
curoli> more easily and more flexibly by adding a size
curoli> attribute to the species. Compartments would be an
curoli> unjustified overkill. Eliminating them would avoid
curoli> uncontrolled labels, so according to your logic
curoli> should be a good thing.
curoli>
curoli> So I still don't see how compartments are more
curoli> essential than species types. If you want to be
curoli> consistent, you should either have both or
curoli> neither. I'm in favour of having both. I don't
curoli> understand how some one can be in favour of having
curoli> one of them.

I'm sorry, but IMNO these statements about compartments are:

(1) Just plain wrong. Compartments are more than just size.
They are *structural elements* of a model, they carry
dimensions and units (not just size), and they have
semantic meaning. To call them "overkill" and
nonessential, and propose instead that they can be
simply replaced by a numerical attribute on a species or
a regular parameter reveals serious misunderstandings
about the needs of compartmental modeling.

(2) Irrelevant to the original point that Robert Phair was
discussing, which concerned species and species types.

Let's go back to resolving Robert's issue.

MH

____________________________________________________________
To manage your sbml-discuss list subscription, visit
https://utils.its.caltech.edu/mailman/listinfo/sbml-discuss

For a web interface to the sbml-discuss mailing list, visit
http://sbml.org/Forums/

For questions or feedback about the sbml-discuss list,
contact sbml-team@caltech.edu