[cellml-discussion] clarification required?

[David Nickerson]

> 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 at 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: david.nickerson at nus.edu.sg