Re: [cellml-discussion] clarification required?
Hi David/Andre, We decided it was more useful to give the number of individual models in the repository, rather than the number of model files (including versions and variants). Personally I think this is better, but I'd also like to see a few other important stats there too, including the total number of versions that we used to have and perhaps a few other things as well, like curated models. David Nickerson wrote: Hi all, I noticed the other day that on the front page of the model repository at cellml.org, the simple total number of models in the repository has now changed to the number of peer reviewed models in the repository. I was just wondering what this means and why the total number of models in the repository is no longer given? Thanks, David. ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
Re: [cellml-discussion] clarification required?
We decided it was more useful to give the number of individual models in the repository, rather than the number of model files (including versions and variants). Personally I think this is better, but I'd also like to see a few other important stats there too, including the total number of versions that we used to have and perhaps a few other things as well, like curated models. Who is we? And yes, definitely more statistics would be good. This could have been achieved by enhancing the existing feature rather than arbitrarily removing it and replacing it with something different and, in my opinion, less valuable. Also, given that it is the CellML Model Repository, it is likely assumed that peer reviewed models refers to the CellML model being peer reviewed - which is not the case. The use of peer reviewed models should be clarified in that statement. David. David Nickerson wrote: Hi all, I noticed the other day that on the front page of the model repository at cellml.org, the simple total number of models in the repository has now changed to the number of peer reviewed models in the repository. I was just wondering what this means and why the total number of models in the repository is no longer given? Thanks, David. ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion -- David Nickerson, PhD Research Fellow Division of Bioengineering Faculty of Engineering National University of Singapore Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
Re: [cellml-discussion] PMR categories
Matt wrote: I have concluded that they are now talking about the web site and not keywords in general. My assumption was that the category field selections are not persisted in the model metadata at all. Actually they are. Keywords are defined in the CellML metadata specifications and are already being used in various files. Feel free to check the CellML files of the old repository and scroll down the to keyword section. An example follows. From http://www.cellml.org/examples/models/beeler_reuter_model_1977.html: !-- Keyword(s) -- bqs:reference rdf:parseType=Resource dc:subject rdf:parseType=Resource bqs:subject_typekeyword/bqs:subject_type rdf:value rdf:Bag rdf:liventricular myocyte/rdf:li rdf:lielectrophysiological/rdf:li /rdf:Bag /rdf:value /dc:subject /bqs:reference I do understand it may be different from the full CellML metadata specification as found in http://www.cellml.org/specifications/metadata/cellml_metadata_1.0#sec_bqs, but all other models pretty much follow this RDF format and so I wound up having to follow the above format to pick up the keyword metadata. I would have liked some indication that the 'categories' used also end up in the model keywords attributed to the model in addition to the keywords supplied by the author when creating or uploading the model. That is already the case, the 'categories' *are* keywords that are chosen by Peter as a selectable choice in the filtering drop box for the repository listing. I would like there to be as many keywords allowed as the author/uploader wants (perhaps just a lines field will do for now for this). Constraining them to a single extra keyword in addition to a selected category makes no sense to me. In the Edit Keyword interface, any keyword of the model that matches one of the 'blessed' keywords will be highlighted in the category list. All other keywords will be in the lines field editor. Feel free to log into the site (I assume you have an account) and try out the editing interface. I do agree it is currently slightly clunky, but James has no complaints with it and he has already added/verified keyword for half the curated models (I think) of the repository. Again, the category field is a *subset* of keywords to limit the number of choices in the filtering menu and not a distinct entity. Hope this clear things up. Tommy. ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
Re: [cellml-discussion] clarification required?
True, that does present a point of confusion. What we (perhaps not so obviously) meant was that there are that number of models that are based on peer reviewed papers. I see the repository has now been updated, but the new statement is even more confusing and putting more emphasis on the peer review of the underlying CellML model rather than published articles, as I think you actually intend. It would probably more correct and less ambiguous to use something along the lines of: There are currently 473 CellML models in this model repository based on 243 unique publications. David. ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
