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 mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
