Forums

Hello Lucian,

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:53:52 +0100
Lucian Smith <lpsmith@spod-central.org> wrote:

> I actually completely disagree with this philosophy. We should
> either define what happens (even if only to say 'it is up to you, and
> a modeller cannot rely on any one thing happening', as we do now with
> simultaneous events), or we should declare that it is actually
> illegal.

Yes, we should define what happens. The only difference is that you are
specifying an algorithm which resolves the situation whereas I say that
we should simply say that this is undefined.

Of course you could say that the priority object must either be present
or absent on all events and bypass the problem that way. However this
will make incomplete models invalid which is against our policy to allow
saving models which are a work in progress. Therefore we need to define
what to do in the situation where we have only partial order
information. In my opinion we should use the simplest resolution for
this.

Thanks,
Stefan


--
Stefan Hoops, Ph.D.
Senior Project Associate
Virginia Bioinformatics Institute - 0477
Virginia Tech
Bioinformatics Facility II
Blacksburg, Va 24061, USA

Phone: (540) 231-1799
Fax: (540) 231-2606
Email: shoops@vbi.vt.edu
____________________________________________________________
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