It might also be worth looking into what the folks over at
http://www.biomodels.net/ are up to. Given they seem to have curation
built into their repository and maybe some other features worth looking
into?
And if we're going to be starting from scratch, there might be some
value into seeing h
> Do we really want to proxy remote repositories? Can we start smaller for now
> but keep that in mind?
I think this will be an essential feature of the model repository as we
move forward. We are trying to present model authors with a common
platform for the distribution and archiving of thei
On 6/22/07, Tommy Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > Hi Tommy,
> >
> > Can you continue to update/fill out your document as well as begin
> > associated proposals with information contained in the replies people
> > are submitting. The goal of this process is a scoping document with
>
Matt wrote:
>> - Version/Variant
>> It already clogged up the system. There is no proper revision control
>> mechanism, what we have now is an ad-hoc emulated system.
>>
>
> I don't think it has clogged the system I just think it has been
> improperly used both by authors and by the user int
For an overview of workflows as applies to us at the moment see:
http://docs.neuroinf.de/PloneBook/ch8.rst (easy read and well worth it)
A note of caution:
Don't engineer the uber workflow that is supposed to cover all things.
For instance, don't think about publish review cycles when you are
Matt wrote:
> Hi Tommy,
>
> Can you continue to update/fill out your document as well as begin
> associated proposals with information contained in the replies people
> are submitting. The goal of this process is a scoping document with
> associated content.
>
It will be done when I am done refi
Hi Tommy,
Can you continue to update/fill out your document as well as begin
associated proposals with information contained in the replies people
are submitting. The goal of this process is a scoping document with
associated content.
More comments below.
On 6/22/07, Tommy Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 m
Matt wrote:
> Hi Tommy,
>
> I found the document seemed to be too far ahead of itself. I also
> didn't find any of the pros and cons very compelling because they
> don't address specific problems and those problems are not described.
>
> 1) What are you actually trying to achieve? It would be use
> 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 thin
> No, there are no stars, anywhere, that are on by default. They are all
> off by default until someone, probably me, certifies that the model
> meets the requirements to get itself a star, or two. Or maybe three.
ok - good to know.
___
cellml-discussion
David Nickerson wrote:
> Hi Tommy,
>
> looks like a good starting point for some discussion. Just to help me
> think through some of the issues, is there any chance you could add a
> usage example illustrating how this system would deal with a model made
> from the combination of a bunch of pap
Hi Andrew,
A couple notes:
> I don't think it is a bad thing to have a one-way cache of metadata
> somewhere for technical / performance reasons (perhaps in a relational
> database), but I think that we should replicate data for each model
> (perhaps using a deep copy-on-write approach if this
Tommy Yu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have written down some of my thoughts on how the model repository could be
> put together.
>
> http://www.cellml.org/Members/tommy/repository_redesign.html
>
> It is still a pretty rough document. The usage example section gives a rough
> outline on what I see people
David Nickerson wrote:
> Wilfred Li wrote:
>> Maybe instead of the star system, which may be open to interpretation at
>> first sight, an abbreviation or a specific word may be used to represent
>> its status?
>
> I guess that if you use something that looks fairly common and standard
> people wi
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 anyth
Dear Wilfred,
Thanks for your input, it is always appreciated. This is certainly a
possibility and is something I have talked about briefly with Peter. He
is in favour of keeping things as simple as possible, but so long as we
didn't end up with too many abbreviations, this could work well.
Thank
No, there are no stars, anywhere, that are on by default. They are all
off by default until someone, probably me, certifies that the model
meets the requirements to get itself a star, or two. Or maybe three.
>
> its more whether that one star is on or off by default?
>
Hi Tommy,
I found the document seemed to be too far ahead of itself. I also
didn't find any of the pros and cons very compelling because they
don't address specific problems and those problems are not described.
1) What are you actually trying to achieve? It would be useful to
describe the parts
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:13:50PM +1200, 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
Hi Tommy,
looks like a good starting point for some discussion. Just to help me
think through some of the issues, is there any chance you could add a
usage example illustrating how this system would deal with a model made
from the combination of a bunch of papers (i.e., a single model where
ea
Hi,
I have written down some of my thoughts on how the model repository could be
put together.
http://www.cellml.org/Members/tommy/repository_redesign.html
It is still a pretty rough document. The usage example section gives a rough
outline on what I see people might be doing with the reposit
22 matches
Mail list logo
