I think even with such a best practice specification the model repository still needs to handle the case where there are multiple primary references - a CellML representation of a model coupling separate mechanics and electrophysiology models together would be an obvious example.
As for more detailed citations, in the work I am doing I end up with specific variables, components and equations referenced to different articles. So in a CellML 1.1 model hierarchy there are many different combinations of "primary" references possible depending on the particular sub-models pulled into a specific experiment. The base model has one primary reference but then I am adding various extra features to the model which all have their own primary reference or making changes to parameter values for various experiments etc. I don't think the bio_entity or math_problem would be appropriate in these instances. Andre. Andrew Miller wrote: > Hi, > > As discussed at the last CellML meeting, there are some models which > reference both the paper about the model, and a reference about the > biology. Since there is no way to determine between them, this creates > problems for CellML metadata processing tools which want to identify the > paper about the model (such as the CellML repository). However, it would > still be a good thing to include references about the biology / > experiments on which a model is based, as well as papers on underlying > mathematical techniques (and perhaps earlier papers?) > > The CellML Metadata specification already describes a predicate > cmeta:bio_entity, and another cmeta:math_problem. Although the cmeta > specification suggests that these be used to provide references to > identifiers for the biological entity a part of the model relates to, > and likewise for the mathematical problem, it would also be possible to > create a list of references inside the resource targeted by the > bio_entity or math_problem predicate. > > I would therefore suggest that the following be considered best practice: > 1) Only refer to the paper about the model from the metadata for the model. > 2) Any other papers should be in another resource referred to from the > bio_entity and math_problem entities. > > Does anyone else have any opinion on this? > > Best regards, > Andrew > > || > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion -- David Nickerson, PhD Research Fellow Division of Bioengineering Faculty of Engineering National University of Singapore Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
