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.
David Nickerson wrote: >> Just one comment here. That is, if you look at the level 2 curation >> requirements, the only one that isn't satisfied by most of the models >> I've given two stars is the unit checking. So what this means is that we >> have a bunch of models which are much better curated than the level 1 >> curated models, but there isn't any way to actually show that if we >> aren't going to let them be level two. This is related to your point >> about splitting up the curation levels, and there are many models which >> would require actually reformulating the model completely to get units >> consistency (which would probably require the author getting involved.) >> >> If we did move units consistency up to level three, I think it would >> make things more straight forward. > > Rather than moving units consistency up to level 3 it would probably be > better to move what is currently level 3 up to 4 and make level 3 all > about units consistency. > >> I think for the time being I'm going to take a left-wing approach and >> spend more time fixing the models that are completely broken. > > which I think is the right thing to be doing, I just think we need to be > careful that the status advertised for a given model matches the > definition of that status. Yep. I feel like biting off something I can chew right now. > > > David. > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
