You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently it is not allowed to use observable IDs in noiseFormula in the observables table (#368). It would be great to allow that.
This would convenient for specifying relative errors. Although the observableFormula could be copied to the noiseFormula, it would be more readable and less error prone if one could simply use the respective observableId.
Also, some tools do not support state variables, but only observables in noise models, so this would be convenient there too.
Opinions?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This doesn't really require much adaptation. It's mostly about making a decision whether we want to allow that. (I think we should.)
Thanks for the reminder, I'll bring that up again in the next PEtab editor meeting (ping @PEtab-dev/petab-editors).
Following up on #543 and the discussion during the last PEtab editor meeting:
There was general consent to allow using observableIDs in the `noiseFormula` column in the observables table.
What was not discussed explicitly:
* Should all observable IDs be allowed, or only the current one?
* If so, should it be allowed to use observable IDs inside `observableFormula`?
CC @PEtab-dev/petab-editors
Closes ##543
Currently it is not allowed to use observable IDs in
noiseFormula
in the observables table (#368). It would be great to allow that.This would convenient for specifying relative errors. Although the
observableFormula
could be copied to thenoiseFormula
, it would be more readable and less error prone if one could simply use the respectiveobservableId
.Also, some tools do not support state variables, but only observables in noise models, so this would be convenient there too.
Opinions?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: