[Vp-integration-subgroup] [EXT] Re: White paper revision

Tue May 18 05:28:58 PDT 2021

Sorry I wasn't on the call Yesterday (it was 1 am for me so not really
achievable). Looking at the emails looks like it was useful.

Happy to help how I can, in terms of areas as someone on the multicellular
side of life i'm probably most use on 3 but happy to support others.

James

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 3:12 PM John Gennari <gennari at uw.edu> wrote:

> * External email: Please exercise caution *
> ------------------------------
>
>
> All: About 9 of us had a lively Zoom meeting today to chat about the
> manuscript. By the end, it was a productive meeting, and I'm hoping that
> this email will capture some key outputs from the meeting. I apologize if I
> said some things that were a bit "inflammatory". Obviously 2 years would be
> much too long to get this paper out-the door.
>
> I saw two outcomes. First, we had some nice ideas and discussion about
> re-ordering (initiated by Tomas Helikar). In the below, I'm going to
> propose one possible ordering, but this is certainly a work-in-progress.
> The reason that I think ordering is important is that it will give us a
> much better ability to write a strong concluding section, where we talk
> about themes and the larger arc of our ideas.
>
> Second, we agreed that we should nominate "point persons" who would be in
> charge of at least the initial cut of each of the subsections. As Jacob
> pointed out, this information should be easy to get from older email and
> history of the development of the paper. During the zoom meeting, we
> associated some co-authors with some sections, but our coverage wasn't
> perfect (see challenge #12). Hopefully people will "stand up" and admit
> that some section of text is theirs.
>
> So in the below, I include the original title of the section, a few words
> about the content of that section, and then a name (or several names) of
> co-authors who will be the "point person" to make sure that the appropriate
> content is included. Obviously, all co-authors can and should chime in on
> any part of the text, but the point person should make sure that the key
> ideas are included.
>
> The basic ordering idea for the dozen challenges was to follow the
> life-cycle of model development, execution, sharing and integration, and
> eventually implementation. So...
>
> *********************************************
>
> *(1) "**Data** and measurement definitions*". Before you can build a
> model, you must have data. So data availability and measurement standards
> is the place to start.
>
> *People: *Hana D, Jacob B
>
> *(2) "**The variety of modeling languages*" This is about the choice of
> modeling languages, such as using SBML, CellML, or Matlab. As I said on the
> phone call, this is sort of about "syntax"--how do you write down your
> model?
>
> *People:* John G, Jon K, Rahuman S.
>
> *(3) "**The variety of modeling paradigms and scales"* Separately from
> modeling syntax, we must acknowledge modeling paradigms with very different
> semantics. Some clear examples are PDEs versus ODEs versus rule-based
> systems (and obviously one can combine these). Certainly semantics might
> impact syntax (the prior challenge), in that certain modeling language
> might be appropriate only for some paradigms.
>
> People: James G, Eric F (?)
>
> *(4) "**Units standardization*" A common reason that models are not
> reproducible are errors in units, or misunderstanding about units, or
> simply a lack of information about units.
>
> People: Jacob B, Hana D
>
> *(5) "**A lack of annotations in models*". Once researchers publish
> models, they must annotate the model so that others can understand it.
> Quality annotation is essential for both search and reproducibility.
>
> People: John G.
>
> *(6) "**Models are hard to locate"* If your goal is to reproduce,
> understand and possibly reuse or integrate some other model, one must first
> find that model. This requires annotation (prior section) and repositories
> (Physiome Model Repository, BioModels) and search platforms
> (ModeleXchange).
>
> People: Jon K, John G.
>
> *(7) "**Common platforms to execute models" *A model is pretty worthless
> as a static object. For folk to understand and reproduce models they must
> be executable. Alas, there is no single or consistent way of executing a
> model -- and of course, this interacts direction with section #2 and #3,
> above: Execution platforms are usually only for one modeling paradigm, and
> often for one modeling language. The BioSimulators work goes here.
>
> People: Jon K.
>
> *(8) "**Credibility **and validity of models*" Once a model is published,
> how do folk know it is right? Model validation is a big topic and
> challenge. Credibility follows (in part) from validation, but also requires
> transparency and reproducibility, etc.
>
> People: John Rice, Jon K, Jacob B
>
> *(9) "**Environments to adapt and integrate models*" As I see it, one of
> the end-targets for this manuscript is to better enable model integration,
> to build better models. There are many challenges with the task of
> integrating two (or more) models. (One that has recently been discussed is
> that even if model A and model B are valid and correct, there is no
> guarantee that the combined model A+B is correct. I liked what William
> Waites and Katherine Morse posted on this subject.) This section is where
> SBML-comp and SemGen environments can be mentioned.
>
> People: John G.
>
> (*10) "Challenges for stochastic models" *Special challenges specific to
> stochaistic modeling. An obvious point to mention is repeatability --
> stochastic models don't necessarily give the same results with the same
> inputs.
>
> People: James G., Eric F
>
> *(11) "Licensing barriers" *Issues around "open source" and CC0
> licensing.
>
> People: Jacob B
>
> *(12) "Barriers to model implementations and applications"*  (I might
> suggest this be re-phrased for better clarity). What this section should
> discuss are challenges is getting a community to actually use models for
> "real-world" applications or decision making. This is more of a
> cultural/societal challenge, and thus seems like a nice big-picture way to
> end.
>
> *People: ?? *I don't have any names here...
>
> *********************************************
>
> We didn't really talk much about it in the Zoom meeting, but there have
> been ideas tossed around about a "baker's dozen", i.e., adding a 13th
> challenge. We could also potentially merge some of the above.
>
> The "point persons" listed above is obviously a subset of co-authors.
> That's fine and appropriate. Just for transparency, I follow what I think
> is pretty standard policy for authorship issues, and nicely summarized by
> the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); see 2019
> updated document at http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf  (Or
> see, below my signature, a summary of the key points of this document).
>
> Finally, I've made the document editable by all at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VvyP3YZQdQYjj8DFKOpQ4pn_0pdDGgiT/edit?ts=60a294c2
>
> -John G.
> ==========================================================================
> Associate Professor & Graduate Program Director      <gennari at uw.edu>
> <gennari at uw.edu>
> Dep't of Biomedical Informatics and                  telephone:206-616-6641
>     Medical Education, box 358047
> University of Washington
> Seattle, WA  98109-4714             http://faculty.washington.edu/gennari/
> ==========================================================================
>
> The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:
>
> 1.      Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the
> work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
> AND
>
> 2.      Drafting the work or revising it critically for important
> intellectual content; AND
>
> 3.      Final approval of the version to be published; AND
>
> 4.      Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in
> ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of
> the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.simtk.org/pipermail/vp-integration-subgroup/attachments/20210518/f29c93e8/attachment.html>