>> Another alternative in the short term would to simply name the models >> as separate models (which they are) > > That's an interesting proposal. Given the current way that the models > are listed, that would be a good way of displaying that the models are > variants. If you upload two variants of a model, they come up as > duplicate listings (i.e. no information is displayed about the nature of > the variant,) so simply making them two different models would get > around this. Anyone else have comments on this?
I don't think we want to start breaking the current model naming convention just to get around quirks in the current model repository implementation - or rather, this example does not provide sufficient reason why we should break the naming convention. There is no reason to make things even more complicated in terms of moving forward. The other point to note is that in the current model repository it was the intention of the first section (Model Status) in the model documentation to state the current curation status of the given CellML model. This was done as a temporary step until a more detailed curation annotation framework was available. 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. Andre. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
