First login?
Lost password?
 
 
cellml-discussion AT lists.cellml.org 
CellML Discussion List

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] embedded stimulus currents in CellML models


Chronological Thread 
  • From: matt.halstead at auckland.ac.nz (Matt )
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] embedded stimulus currents in CellML models
  • Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:43:23 +1200
On 7/19/07, David Nickerson <david.nickerson at nus.edu.sg> wrote:
> > Of course. And in the same sense you could simply delete the stimulus
> > protocol component if you didn't want it. I think the issue is in fact a
> > curation issue - we are specifying one of our curation 'levels' as
> > "model is the same as is described in the paper." If there is a stimulus
> > protocol that isn't in the paper in the CellML model, then this curation
> > standard is invalidated. This is fine, as it (hopefully) moves the model
> > up to the next 'level,' which requires that the model be able to produce
> > the appropriate output, but doesn't necessarily require that the model
> > be identical to that described in the paper. So the solution is that we
> > should really have both.

So there is validation in the sense that there is a true
representation of a publication - which more often than not is pretty
useless, and there is validation in the sense that the model can
demonstrate what we think was intended by the publication (most
obviously produces the right results) but perhaps many changes in the
underlying formulation.

Is it ok to only offer the former as a historical version? and should
it be necessary to actually do the former if we can easily see where
the math needs to be written out differently?


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page