[cellml-discussion] a detailed curation specification

[James Lawson]

I have been thinking about this and I think it's worth proposing
formally. But is having a whole level all about units consistency
justified? Perhaps there are other things we could add to this level
that could similarly require the intervention/expertise of the model
author? I can't think of anything off the top of my head right now.


David Nickerson wrote:
>> Just one comment here. That is, if you look at the level 2 curation
>> requirements, the only one that isn't satisfied by most of the models
>> I've given two stars is the unit checking. So what this means is that we
>> have a bunch of models which are much better curated than the level 1
>> curated models, but there isn't any way to actually show that if we
>> aren't going to let them be level two. This is related to your point
>> about splitting up the curation levels, and there are many models which
>> would require actually reformulating the model completely to get units
>> consistency (which would probably require the author getting involved.)
>>
>> If we did move units consistency up to level three, I think it would
>> make things more straight forward.
> 
> Rather than moving units consistency up to level 3 it would probably be 
> better to move what is currently level 3 up to 4 and make level 3 all 
> about units consistency.
> 
>> I think for the time being I'm going to take a left-wing approach and
>> spend more time fixing the models that are completely broken.
> 
> which I think is the right thing to be doing, I just think we need to be 
> careful that the status advertised for a given model matches the 
> definition of that status.

Yep. I feel like biting off something I can chew right now.

> 
> 
> David.
>