| Author | Topic |
|---|
Posts: 469
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
RE: SBML L2v2 specification vote #4: References to controlled vocabularies
|
19 Dec '05 08:52
 
|
 |
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Gauges, Ralph wrote:
> So this said, if there is no way to to have a kineticLaw elemtn without a formula, the sboTerm is useless at least for deterministic simulation programs?
Maybe. But one of the reasons we felt we had to use SBO within SBML
was precisely the continuous versus discrete problem (I assume you
meant continuous when you said "determinitic"). In the current SBML,
there is nothing that tells-us if a formula has to be understood as a
discrete or continuous formulation. Since all kineticLaws provide
substance/time, I can read all of them in a discrete simulator, and
into problems if they were expressing contiuous mass-action laws.
--
Nicolas LE NOVÈRE, Computational Neurobiology,
EMBL-EBI, Wellcome-Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK
Tel: +44(0)1223 494 521, Fax: +44(0)1223 494 468, Mob: +33(0)689218676
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~lenov AIM screen name: nlenovere
|
|
|
