On 4/12/07, James Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > This scratches a couple of important pending issues:
> >
> > 1) I feel the term 'variant' is odd (even though I originally
> > suggested it). It was intended to mean that the model labelled as a
> > variant is a variation of the
Matt wrote:
> This scratches a couple of important pending issues:
>
> 1) I feel the term 'variant' is odd (even though I originally
> suggested it). It was intended to mean that the model labelled as a
> variant is a variation of the one it is a variant of. However, this
> isn't really a very app
Matt wrote:
> This scratches a couple of important pending issues:
>
> 1) I feel the term 'variant' is odd (even though I originally
> suggested it). It was intended to mean that the model labelled as a
> variant is a variation of the one it is a variant of. However, this
> isn't really a very app
This scratches a couple of important pending issues:
1) I feel the term 'variant' is odd (even though I originally
suggested it). It was intended to mean that the model labelled as a
variant is a variation of the one it is a variant of. However, this
isn't really a very applicable definition, espe
Addendum:
The model in the repository describes the apex cells only.
James Lawson wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm just fishing for some comments on how to handle cases where there
> are models which describe, for example, the properties of multiple cell
> types. Bondarenko et al. 2004 is a good examp
Hi folks,
I'm just fishing for some comments on how to handle cases where there
are models which describe, for example, the properties of multiple cell
types. Bondarenko et al. 2004 is a good example of this:
"In the Bondarenko et al. 2004 publication described here, the authors
develop a compute