David Nickerson wrote: >> 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?
Ah, I can't remember who brought it up originally, but it has been through Peter. And yes, definitely more statistics would be good. Perhaps we could even have a statistics page, which could contain things like: "The CellML repository currently contains: 67 cardiac electrophysiology models, 54 signal transduction models, 18 cell cycle models etc." (those numbers are arbitrary) 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. True, that does present a point of confusion. What we (perhaps not so obviously) meant was that there are that number of models that are based on peer reviewed papers. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
