Alan Garny wrote: >>> Shouldn't we therefore offer at least two different sets of CellML >> 1.0 >>> files? One that only contains the model itself and another that also >>> includes some simulation specific information? >> I actually replied to this somewhere else - I'll repeat it... >> We just talked about this issue in the meeting. We decided that it was >> probably worth providing one with and one without. Obviously the one >> without would not be able to be simulated in PCEnv or COR. > > You could still easily modify the model for your own purpose in COR (and the > same in PCEnv, I believe). >
Of course. And in the same sense you could simply delete the stimulus protocol component if you didn't want it. I think the issue is in fact a curation issue - we are specifying one of our curation 'levels' as "model is the same as is described in the paper." If there is a stimulus protocol that isn't in the paper in the CellML model, then this curation standard is invalidated. This is fine, as it (hopefully) moves the model up to the next 'level,' which requires that the model be able to produce the appropriate output, but doesn't necessarily require that the model be identical to that described in the paper. So the solution is that we should really have both. This is the kind of issue that really needs to go in a tracker. >>> Though CellML 1.1 is the obvious way to go, we have to accept the >> fact that >>> most CellML users probably only use CellML 1.0. >> But is that because they a.) don't need 1.1, b.) don't know how to use >> 1.1 or c.) want to use 1.1 but don't because the repository doesn't >> support it? I suspect it is either a or c, since most people would find >> out how to use 1.1 if it was a tool they thought would be useful. > > Depending on the end-user, it could be a, b and/or c, as well as the fact > that apart from PCEnv, no other CellML-capable software that I am aware of > can deal with CellML 1.1 models. This emphasises my view that we have to > make the CellML API easy to use and provide several examples of its use. > This is a good point. There is no point simply criticising other software because it doesn't make use of 1.1. We need to ask why this is, and if there is anything we can do to make it easier for developers to make their software 1.1-capable. I think this is definitely an area where you could be very useful, since you can take a fresh look at the API, whereas it is much harder for someone like Andrew to take a step back from it. > Alan. > > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > cellml-discussion@cellml.org > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
