David Nickerson wrote: >> I have been thinking about this and I think it's worth proposing >> formally. But is having a whole level all about units consistency >> justified? Perhaps there are other things we could add to this level >> that could similarly require the intervention/expertise of the model >> author? I can't think of anything off the top of my head right now. > > Personally I think there is nothing wrong with the current levels and > keeping units with getting the model giving correct results. I have > little faith in a model which can give the correct results while being > defined with inconsistent units. I was simply suggesting moving units to > a higher level to try and ease the burden of getting models beyond level > 1 curation, as you pointed out a model which does run and gives > reasonable results is much better than one which does not run at all, > even with inconsistent units, depending upon the task you wish to put it to. > > The units inconsistency issue is a legacy of the majority of models > being written by hand with no way to test them. In most cases the models > already in the repository can now be tested with either JSim or PyCML > for units consistency, so it would be good to see those tests being done > as part of your curation workflow - even if that just ends up as a > comment in the model status that the units are not consistent or something. > >
Sure, I'll start doing that. By the way, what exactly is a workflow? ;) > 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
