[cellml-discussion] a detailed curation specification

[James Lawson]

David Nickerson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Personally I think there is nothing wrong with the current levels and 
> keeping units with getting the model giving correct results. I have 
> little faith in a model which can give the correct results while being 
> defined with inconsistent units. I was simply suggesting moving units to 
> a higher level to try and ease the burden of getting models beyond level 
> 1 curation, as you pointed out a model which does run and gives 
> reasonable results is much better than one which does not run at all, 
> even with inconsistent units, depending upon the task you wish to put it to.
> 
> The units inconsistency issue is a legacy of the majority of models 
> being written by hand with no way to test them. In most cases the models 
> already in the repository can now be tested with either JSim or PyCML 
> for units consistency, so it would be good to see those tests being done 
> as part of your curation workflow - even if that just ends up as a 
> comment in the model status that the units are not consistent or something.
> 
> 

Sure, I'll start doing that. By the way, what exactly is a workflow? ;)

> David.
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion