> We decided it was more useful to give the number of individual models in > the repository, rather than the number of model files (including > versions and variants). Personally I think this is better, but I'd also > like to see a few other important stats there too, including the total > number of versions that we used to have and perhaps a few other things > as well, like curated models.
Who is we? And yes, definitely more statistics would be good. This could have been achieved by enhancing the existing feature rather than arbitrarily removing it and replacing it with something different and, in my opinion, less valuable. Also, given that it is the CellML Model Repository, it is likely assumed that "peer reviewed models" refers to the CellML model being peer reviewed - which is not the case. The use of peer reviewed models should be clarified in that statement. David. > > David Nickerson wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I noticed the other day that on the front page of the model repository >> at cellml.org, the simple total number of models in the repository has >> now changed to the number of peer reviewed models in the repository. I >> was just wondering what this means and why the total number of models in >> the repository is no longer given? >> >> >> Thanks, >> David. >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
