Hi Nicolas, Thanks for that explanation.
> We release the models publicly twice a year. just wondering what you mean by this? is it that the public database is only gets updated twice a year, while the model curators are working on the (private) next release of the models? Also, do you have any sense of curation (over and above the libSBML consistency checks) for a model not based on a particular peer-reviewed publication? For example, models that are designed simply as test-cases for particular expected software behaviour - where the structure and expected behaviour of the model are well known but not described in any specific published article. From what I remember, MIRIAM uses published articles as the reference description of a model in regard to MIRIAM compliance, but could another source reference description be used in model curation, albeit not in conjunction with MIRIAM compliance? > finally that one can reproduce published results *using different > software than the one used by the authors*. I think this is very important requirement for model curation, but one that is quite daunting for CellML models, especially CellML 1.1 based models. One question I have is how different different tools need to be to satisfy such curation? What I'm getting at is that there could potentially be many "different" tools based on a common library (the CellML API and code generation service, or libSBML for example), but to me these wouldn't be different enough as the actual interpretation of the model is essentially done by the common layer underneath whatever extra bits the specific tool is adding in. Or is throwing the model through a different numerical integrator, for example, enough to satisfy this requirement? Thanks, David. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
