Re: [SED-ML-discuss] How to resolve models

[Frank B. <fbergman@u.washington.edu>]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Nicolas Le novère wrote:

> Surely you must be able to support all those. The only exception is indeed 
> the URN. But you would only have to support MIRIAM's ones. And MIRIAM 
> resolvers would turn them into URLs.

great ... that was all i wanted to know ... until now it was not clear that only MIRIAM URNs were to be used. 

> 
> 
> But all that is fine for small simulations. When the models are very large, 
> and in the future makes use of experimental data (cf the other thread), it 
> is not practical. Furthermore, you may want to re-use a SED-ML description 
> with different models and/or measurements.

The archive format is meant for the exchange only ... it does not add any magic to it. When libraries would like to re-use the SED-ML description of one archive they can easily recover it. The space needed is also not an issue IMHO. 

> 
>> And I really don't see your problem in this. Given that there seem to be two
>> implementations so far of this Richards and mine, and both accept this
>> archive format, then where is the harm in having it? It is extremely useful,
>> will solve versioning issues and communication issues with users. And it is
>> entirely optional, the user chooses whether to save an archive or not. 
> 
> As far as it is optional, this is fine with me. But I do not think the 
> usage of such an archive should not be required for SED-ML compliance.
> 

Well, my hope was for an easy exchange of the files. As I will not be dealing with remote files except for rare cases I needed the archive format for exchange between machines. I think it is a vital issue and it should be interoperable. If that is not written in the specification, then this is a missed chance. Tool 1, will implement it in one way, and tool 2 in another. I do not see why we have to go that way when we have the chance, right now to specify the way to go. 

Frank