Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

So, for example in
> http://www.cellml.org/models/tentusscher_noble_noble_panfilov_2004_version01_variant01
>
> I'm guessing you have fixed the model to work in PCEnv (hence the star)
> but the model status still states "This is the original unchecked
> version of the model imported from the previous CellML model repository,
> 24-Jan-2006". Given there is still no curation annotation framework I
> think we still need to be using such a plain text description of the
> status of each model and thus you should update the documentation to
> reflect what you actually have done. This would also be the place to
> justify the use of a variant rather than version.

This particular model isn't one I've actually fixed - just one that I've
checked and annotated with a star to denote that it runs in PCEnv. As
such I don't know exactly where that version has come from - I can only
assume that it came from the old repository. The presence of the star
means that it shouldn't say that it is unchecked, however. I'll change
that now. Of course the star system remains ambiguous because not all of
the models that lack stars don't run in PCEnv - they simply haven't been
checked, and not all of the models with stars have been fixed by myself
personally - I have just certified that they run in PCEnv.

In the case that I have in fact created a new version, I have updated
the model status. Since there's currently no annotation framework as
such, and since I have really just started and am learning what needs to
be said etc as I go, some of the annotation I've put to models that I
fixed earlier isn't consistent with what I'm doing now. The model
documentation can't be changed from the page - the file needs to be
downloaded, changed and then reuploaded.

At the moment I'm primarily saying what version the current version was
updated from, by who, and when (if I know). Some of my earlier
annotations included the error that the previous version was producing.
This can produce a lot of text though, particularly when it requires
listing scores of variables that couldn't be defined etc. I do have all
this information (regarding how a particular model was fixed, that is,)
documented on my computer, however.

Does anyone have any comments or proposals, formal or informal,
concerning what information needs to be included in the model status
documentation? The more consistent I can be now, the less I'll have to
go back and redo in the future.

James

---

• [cellml-discussion] Workshop presentations now available, David Nickerson, 04/11/2007
  • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiple cell types are described by the same model in different files, James Lawson, 04/12/2007
    • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiple cell types are described by the same model in different files, James Lawson, 04/12/2007
      • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiple cell types are described by the same model in different files, Matt , 04/12/2007
        • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiple cell types are described by the same model in different files, Tommy Yu, 04/12/2007
          • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiple celltypes are described by the same model in different files, David Nickerson, 04/12/2007
            • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiple celltypes are described by the same model in different files, Matt , 04/12/2007
              • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiplecelltypes are described by the same model in different files, David Nickerson, 04/12/2007
        • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiple cell types are described by the same model in different files, James Lawson, 04/12/2007
          • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiple celltypes are described by the same model in different files, David Nickerson, 04/12/2007
            • [cellml-discussion] curation annotation framework, James Lawson, 04/12/2007
              • [cellml-discussion] curation annotation framework, David Nickerson, 04/12/2007
              • [cellml-discussion] curation annotation framework, James Lawson, 04/12/2007
              • [cellml-discussion] curation annotation framework, Matt , 04/12/2007
              • [cellml-discussion] curation annotation framework, David Nickerson, 04/12/2007
              • [cellml-discussion] curation annotation framework, David Nickerson, 04/12/2007
          • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiple cell types are described by the same model in different files, Matt , 04/12/2007
      • [cellml-discussion] model variants(?): e.g. where multiple celltypes are described by the same model in different files, David Nickerson, 04/12/2007

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.