My $0.02 on this is (please forgive me if I get some of the technical stuff mixed up):
The current naming scheme is as it translates to the web address is: author(s)_date_versionXX_variantXX I think it should be author(s)_date_variantXX_versionXX instead, since IMO, one should be thinking in terms of versions of variants, rather than variants of versions. Also, I think that if there were perhaps some metadata that could pertain to what version and variant a cellml file is, and also some 'sub'metadata under variant to say what the variant represents, whether it's a particular cell type or what. I realise that metadata isn't supposed to be added to a model for the sake of a repository or for any non-generalised purpose, but I think that version/variant metadata would be useful. E.g. for 1.1 models, a simulator could pick this metadata up. So you could bring up window in which the software could tell you that, for example, you are embedding this version of this markov model of an L-type Ca++ channel, by such and such et al., into a variant 02 - "epicardial cell" Pandit et al. cardiac cell model, etc. etc. Another example would be working with CellML 1.1 models in an era where we have a library of components that people can use. We might have a GPCR component which has a large number of variants, and it would be crucial for the simulation/editing programs like PCEnv to know, and be able to tell the user, which version and variant of each component they are using. People might want to swap in different variants to see how if affects their model etc. And of course this version/variant metadata would obviously be highly useful (IMO) for the repository. Maybe subversion could automatically write this metadata. What I'm really trying to say is that I think there is justification for version/variant information to be stored in metadata as well as the URI naming scheme, since, unless I'm missing something, there is useful information (both for repositories and simulator software) that can't be stored in the URI. James > >> - 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 interface. Ideally the users and authors shouldn't be presented the option to make mistakes like this, should they? Most people, I would imagine, don't care about the versions of a model unless they are actually working on/with it. This is no > fault of the authors, there is simply a specification for versioning > that is missing. The hope is that subversion applies well to this. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
