Re: model variants(?): e.g. where multiple cell types are described by the same model in different files

On 4/12/07, James Lawson <j.lawson-1/NbpDiVQt6SYBAHRPvY1A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
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 one it is a variant of. However, this
> > isn't really a very applicable definition, especially if one may
> > consider a model to be a variant of more than one other model. Since
> > variant is bound up in the URI and name then this makes for dilemmas.
> > My suggestion would be that we drop variants altogether. We can mark
> > relations in a better way through metadata.
> >
> > I am also querying whether the flatness of our URI scheme is
> > appropriate for our uses.
> >
> > e.g. perhaps:
> >
> > http://www.cellml.org/models/bondarenko_szigeti_bett_kim_rasmusson_2004_version01
> >
> > should be something like
> >
> > http://www.cellml.org/models/bondarenko_szigeti_bett_kim_rasmusson/2004/ventricular?rev=1
> >
> > (no that is not a formal proposal)
> >
> > But this doesn't really help you now. The technically correct method
> > at the moment would be that the new models that are similar but
> > different only in their parameterisations are added as variants.
> >
>
> Right.


So given the current system I would do the following:

1) create a generic form of the model without parameters set - a
broken model in one sense
2) add these other models that are different parameterisations of this
model as variants of this generic-ish one
3) add the existing apical cell one in as a variant of this generic model also.
4) put an HTTP redirect in for the old URI to point to the variant form.

I take it the existing one is:
http://www.cellml.org/models/bondarenko_szigeti_bett_kim_rasmusson_2004_version01

which actually says:

"The model includes parameters for both the apex and the septum
regions of the heart (the apex parameters have been substituted into
the CellML version of the model described in )"

Which I find confusing.



>
> > Another alternative in the short term would to simply name the models
> > as separate models (which they are)
>
> That's an interesting proposal. Given the current way that the models
> are listed, that would be a good way of displaying that the models are
> variants. If you upload two variants of a model, they come up as
> duplicate listings (i.e. no information is displayed about the nature of
> the variant,) so simply making them two different models would get
> around this. Anyone else have comments on this?
>
> and we define now an rdf relation
> > scheme that is very explicitly about how different models at different
> > URIs relate to the one you are editing. This would mean that Tommy
> > needs to update the rendering of the pages for these models to reflect
> > this information.
> >
> > 2) These models should use imports so that we can at least point to
> > the generic model and then the specialised parameterised ones. But
> > that won't work right now because the repository can't handle 1.1
> > models.
>
> In this case there is no generic model available. The model we have on
> the repository for Bondarenko et al. 2004 is the one describing the
> apical cells.
>
> >
> > cheers
> > Matt
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion-+N4dcC6UsuQdnm+yROfE0A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>