Forums

Hi,

I am also a bit surprised this is controversial. I think Lucian
approach makes sense.

That being said, the current solution of leaves it up to the tool
developer on how to deal with this situation of mixed or missing
priorities so as tool developers, we can implement it in this way. I
highly doubt any tool developers will choose the stop option anyway.
Therefore, the undefined approach allows us to agree to disagree on
the behavior in this situation. :-)

Cheers,

Chris

Sent from my iPod

On Jun 25, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Nicolas Le novère <lenov@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 25/06/10 22:56, Lucian Smith wrote:
>> * Nicolas Le novère<lenov@ebi.ac.uk> [2010-06-25 22:27] writes:
>>> On 25/06/10 18:09, Stefan Hoops wrote:
>
>>> I agree with Stefan. The situation is very similar to the unit
>>> one. If
>>> priorities are used, they must be used on all events. If a single
>>> event
>>> misses a priority, then all the other priorities are ignored. The
>>> priorities do no matter at all. People are free to do whatever
>>> they want
>>> with the events.
>>
>> I don't think this is quite what Stefan was saying (though maybe it
>> was!)
>> but I disagree. You put priorities on the events that might
>> clash. You
>> leave the rest alone. I don't understand why this is even
>> controversial.
>
> Yes, this is what Stefan was saying. And the discussion clearly show
> that
> this is controversial.
>
>>> I do not see any advantage at all in mixed situations. And
>>> actually, I
>>> cannot imagine how such a model would be generated since SBML is
>>> supposed
>>> to be written by a software. Either this software generates
>>> priorities, for
>>> all events, or not.
>>
>> Priorities are added, as I see it, by hand. I cannot envision any
>> algorithm that generates priorities automatically for all events,
>> unless
>> it is to give them all the same priority in order to ensure
>> randomness.
>
> I am not talking about algorithm. I am talking about tools. You add
> the
> priority by hand IN YOUR TOOL. Then your tool writes the SBML.
>
>> But whenever two priorities differ and were not randomly generated,
>> the
>> reason it was so is due to a specific decision on the part of the
>> modeler.
>> A decision that need not be made for all events, just the ones whose
>> EventAssignments might clash in some fashion.
>
> But all eventAssignment can potentially clash, except the one that are
> triggered and fired at explicit times. Actually finding events that
> cannot
> clash in a complex model would be an interesting research project.
>
> --
> Nicolas LE NOVERE, Computational Neurobiology, EMBL-EBI, Wellcome-
> Trust
> Genome Campus, Hinxton CB101SD UK, Mob:+447833147074, Tel:
> +441223494521
> Fax:468,Skype:n.lenovere,AIM:nlenovere,MSN:nlenovere@hotmail.com(NOT
> email)
> http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~lenov/, http://www.ebi.ac.uk/compneur/,
> @lenovere
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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