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 thinking about workflow as it relates to curation. It may be that models have multiple workflows or it may be that a curation workflow enters at some point of an overall submit, review, publish workflow. For now you want to focus on the states that represent the levels and the conditions for a transition from one state to another. There may also be actions that would be useful for particular transitions such as notifying various users with particular roles (you probably want to have a look at http://docs.neuroinf.de/PloneBook/ch9.rst to get a better understanding on what roles are. In the back of my mind I have the feeling we should be persisting curation level data into the model metadata, but not for instance the state of publishing, since that is site specific. Curation level as defined by Andre's document so far has value independent of a content management system. So this is another reason to just focus on these levels for now and the rules for making transitions. cheers Matt On 6/22/07, James Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 model > >> author? I can't think of anything off the top of my head right now. > > > > Personally I think there is nothing wrong with the current levels and > > keeping units with getting the model giving correct results. I have > > little faith in a model which can give the correct results while being > > defined with inconsistent units. I was simply suggesting moving units to > > a higher level to try and ease the burden of getting models beyond level > > 1 curation, as you pointed out a model which does run and gives > > reasonable results is much better than one which does not run at all, > > even with inconsistent units, depending upon the task you wish to put it to. > > > > The units inconsistency issue is a legacy of the majority of models > > being written by hand with no way to test them. In most cases the models > > already in the repository can now be tested with either JSim or PyCML > > for units consistency, so it would be good to see those tests being done > > as part of your curation workflow - even if that just ends up as a > > comment in the model status that the units are not consistent or something. > > > > > > Sure, I'll start doing that. By the way, what exactly is a workflow? ;) > > > David. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
