On 4/12/07, James Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
So this is a variant of a version that does not exist anywhere? It may have been that someone thought the default for name for a new model needed to include a variant too. > 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 my opinion the stars should be removed for this very reason. > > 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. And that changes the version which is ok. > > 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. I think include it anyway, it's basically your commit message for the new version. > > 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. I presume you are talking explicitly about the element <section id="sec_status"> in the http://cellml.org/tmp-documentation namespace? e.g.: <section id="sec_status"> <title>Model Status</title> <para> This is the original unchecked version of the model imported from the previous CellML model repository, 24-Jan-2006. </para> </section> I would keep this brief as is, but those verbose changes that you mentioned that described what the reason was for the change - i.e. what it was fixing should use cellml metadata, specifically: 4.6 Modification History The modification history lists changes that have been made to the CellML document. Each separate alteration can be described in its own <cmeta:modification> element. Each modification listed should also include the name of the person who made the changes in a <cmeta:modifier> element and the date the document was modified in the Dublin Core date qualifier element, <dcterms:modified>. The definition of modification history metadata is demonstrated in Figure 16 see http://www.cellml.org/specifications/metadata/cellml_metadata_1.0#sec_general_metadata cheers Matt > > James > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
