Andrew Miller wrote: > James Lawson wrote: >> Hi David, >> > ... >> Because of the way this model is built, getting the units to match would >> require drastically remaking it, and I don't think I'd know how to do >> it. I have some ideas, but only because this is a particularly simple >> model, with 3 differential equations and two algebraic expressions. In a >> larger model I would have absolutely no idea where to start. >> >> So what is the solution to this? Only code up models in CellML that are >> perfect? Because technically, this model isn't valid CellML >> > Nothing in the CellML specification says that valid CellML models cannot > have mathematically-inconsistent units in the equations, so it is still > valid CellML.
Okay sure, I'm just going from what the validator said (i.e. that the units mismatch means that the model isn't valid CellML 1.0) > > One of the aims of the repository is for it to represent models as they > were published in journals (or to at least represent the model that the > author used to derive their conclusions, if this happens to differ from > the model actually described). > > If an existing paper has issues like: > * Units are inconsistent. > * Mass, charge, water balance etc... doesn't hold. > * Model lacks long-term stability of some kind > and so on, then we should still put the model in the repository, but we > should annotate the model in some way to warn potential users of the > model about these issues (and therefore allow someone creating a > derivative model to improve on the problems). > > Of course, it is often the case that papers don't fully state the units > of everything, in which case we need to insert our own units, and any > problems with the units that aren't inherent in the paper should be > fixed before the model is uploaded. > > Best regards, > Andrew > >> Kind regards, >> James >> >> >> >> David Nickerson wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am just after a bit of clarification on the use of the stars with the >>> models in the model repository. As I understand the model curation (from >>> http://www.cellml.org/repository-info/info), one star means the model is >>> at curation level 1, two stars for level 2, and three for level 3 >>> curation. For the model simulation tools, there is one star if the model >>> loads in and runs, 2 if the model gives the right results, and 3 stars >>> if the results have been rigorously verified. >>> >>> The first question I have is if the stars next to the "Standard" link >>> represent the model curation level while those next to specific tools >>> correspond to the running of simulations of that model with that tool? >>> In other words, it is not very obvious what all the stars are implying >>> when looking at a model's page in the repository. >>> >>> Looking at the models with two stars (thanks to Tommy's new filter tool >>> on the main page), I see they generally have two stars for Standard, >>> PCEnv and COR but no stars for JSim. If the "Standard" stars do reflect >>> the curation level of the model, then my second question is how are the >>> units are being checked (as required for level 2 curation) without using >>> JSim? I was under the impression that JSim was the only tool capable of >>> throughly checking all the units for consistency in a model, but perhaps >>> there is something else? And if so, should it not also be displayed >>> along with PCEnv, COR, and JSim? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> David. >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
