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
To extend the functionality of the "User-defined" parameterisation section, it would be useful to allow general string content here, to express metadata about how other parameters in the same section should be interpreted.
Corollary issue: Would there be any way to distinguish such strings from "function as string" specification?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is there a reason not to allow the "User-defined" section to be anything (a valid JSON in general), including entire JSON branches to specify new models not supported by BPX yet?
I.e., I should be able to use this section to specify any extra parameters I need, e.g.:
"User-defined": {
"My model 1": {
"Submodel": "Type I",
"Parameter 1": 0.1,
"Coefficients": [0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4],
...
},
"My model 2": {
...
}
}
@ikorotkin This recommendation was made by #46. I think it's a good one!
The main issue that I wanted to raise here was that the schema-defined branches of BPX use string constants to encode functional equations. I don't have the insight to know if there is a way to 'signal' when a string is a string, and when a string is to be read 'as an equation'.
To extend the functionality of the "User-defined" parameterisation section, it would be useful to allow general string content here, to express metadata about how other parameters in the same section should be interpreted.
Corollary issue: Would there be any way to distinguish such strings from "function as string" specification?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: