| Author | Topic |
|---|
Posts: 140
Location:
University of Utah
Registered:
May 2008
|
|
Re: Stochastic simulation in SBML
|
29 Nov '11 13:57
 
|
 |
|
Good point. However, I think it is still good to include the conversion factor between substance and item to make a model more explicit. We can use the avogadro constant in the conversion factor even. It just feels a bit strange to convert units implicitly in one place and explicitly in all other places. When using a derived unit for a substance (ex. nanoMole), the unit definition will be needed to make the conversion. This means that you can no longer ignore units and simulate the model correctly. However, adding the conversion factor will allow us to maintain this feature.
Chris
On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Michael Hucka wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:38:57 -0700, Chris J. Myers wrote:
>> there is not an agreement on Avogadro's precise value, so it should be
>> the case that the value intended by the modeler is included in the
>> model as the conversion factor.
>
> The L3 spec states the exact value that the csymbol for Avogadro and the unit symbol "avogadro" are assumed to take!
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
|
|
|
