[Vp-integration-subgroup] White paper revision
John Gennari
gennari at uw.edu
Mon May 24 08:40:15 PDT 2021
No, no no. I don't want to delete the table either!!
There are now two copies of the table in the paper. I just meant that
we'll eventually delete the older out-of-order table.
-jhg
On 5/24/2021 1:32 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote:
> And John,
>
> One more important thing,
>
> You mentioned deleting the table. I strongly object. Please keep the
> table in the paper - it's ok to have sections,yet the table is not a
> repetition, it is a necessary quick summary for those readers who do
> not have time to read the entire paper. In one table we summarize the
> issues and the potential solutions, so please do keep it - you can
> rephrase the text there, yet I think that it is important just like
> the image we have.
>
> Hopefully you now see the importance.
>
> Jacob
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 3:07 AM Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com
> <mailto:jacob.barhak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks John,
>
> Since you decided to work on the version you started from
> integration, I repeat my request to secure the document and only
> allow editing by permission from you.
>
> This means that people will have to use their accounts to view the
> content of comments and make edits and you will need to to approve
> each and every person in the list to edit by sharing the document
> with them, yet it also means that you will be able to trace back
> edits to source - also it will prevent malicious acts - remember
> that all the links to the document are public so anyone can
> potentially edit without restriction and google docs does not
> allow removal of a version. So I ask you to secure this. Not that
> there is a high chance of anything bad happening, yet I witnessed
> malicious changes in the past and securing the document is
> relatively easy - only a few clicks for you in the share options.
>
> Also, should people add themselves to the sections they want? You
> missed some of the communications in the email list - for example
> I wanted to be added in sections 2,.9, 10. I have some text that I
> want to be kept and I do want to contribute new text following new
> developments to one of the sections. I looked at what Eric did to
> section 10 and it seems the content I am interested in being kept
> is still there, so I have no issues there I see now, yet this
> section was reduced in size and I have not traced back to original
> contributions, so I am not sure about what else was eliminated and
> still want to keep an eye on it in the future - this is why it is
> important that people declare the sections they have interest in -
> to help you trace back their contributions and those were not
> necessarily made in a way that is easily detected by the original
> author - there was a lot of moving around of text from original
> contribution.
>
> You mentioned section 3.8 - You merged 3 sub sections into this
> new section when you changed the order. Those were written by many
> people - it is hard to trace back all contributions, yet this
> section has many important ideas. I can recognize contributions by
> John Rice, Jonathan Karr, and myself at the first part before
> subsections yet I am not sure about text under the "Evaluating
> Model Credibility" and "Model Validation Barriers" subtitles. If I
> recall correctly, and I may be mistaken, a lot of the text
> under "Evaluating Model Credibility" is from Jonathan Karr with
> some text from James Glazier. Yet I am pretty sure there were
> several other contributors and to my regret I am not sure who they
> were without going through revisions of the original versions.
> Perhaps since we did not suggest a solution to "Model Validation
> Barriers" this section should be moved to an open questions
> section or an appendix at the end - yet I really do not recall who
> originally wrote the text there so I cannot verify with that
> person what they prefer. Note that those contributions can be
> traced back in time to see who added what text - yet this process
> is time consuming - I did this once when I assembled the combined
> version and it was a time sink. I understand your desire to
> compress the section, yet I also know it will be difficult to be
> honest to all contributors unless they identify themselves - one
> possible way is that contributors identify themselves through
> references they recognize adding. Please let me know what you
> think should be done in that section the way you assembled it - I
> am reluctant to make edits unless contributors help trace back
> their contributions. Yet it is important do keep the first part
> of this section intact as much as possible - it has important
> concepts. I personally am interested keeping the paragraph about
> ensemble models - I think this is an important glimpse to the future.
>
> So John, do you want us to write our own names at the top of each
> section we have interest in, or do you intend to trace back
> contributions and manage those?
>
> Yet please do secure the document. I know it seems harmless, yet I
> will personally feel much easier if you do.
>
> Jacob
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 1:14 AM John Gennari <gennari at uw.edu
> <mailto:gennari at uw.edu>> wrote:
>
>
> All:
>
> We've all now had a week to work on (or at least think about)
> the paper
> and the emails that have been sent around. As I listed on
> Monday, we're
> suggesting a re-ordering of the 12 (or 13?) challenges, and
> for each
> challenge, we are trying to assign a point person. That person
> doesn't
> need to be solely responsible for the content in the
> subsection (other
> authors can certainly chime in), but the point person(s) can
> act as a
> gatekeeper for consistency, length considerations, inclusion
> of ideas, etc.
>
> The challenge (as usual) is to actually get some writing done.
> (Of
> course, I'm just as guilty as others, having done not much of
> this either.)
>
> Over the last week, I saw some nice contributions by Alexander
> Kulesza
> (thank you!), so I've added his name to the author list.
> Otherwise, all
> I saw was some editing and some additions by Hana D and a few
> thoughts
> by James G.
>
> I also wanted to highlight that we have one section (the 12th
> challenge, on model applications and real-world use) without
> a point
> person.
>
> I did go ahead and re-order the sections in the order listed
> in my email
> of May 17. This means that I also re-ordered (and numbered)
> the rows in
> Table 1. Because there were comments attached to some of these
> table
> rows, I also left the old table in the document. Obviously,
> we'll delete
> this table once folk are satisfied that their ideas have been
> incorporated or at least discussed by the group.
>
> Similarly, there are now two copies of the 12 sections -- once
> in the
> new order and with numbers, and then again in the old order.
>
> In the new ordering, I've listed the point person (or persons)
> at the
> beginning, and I also have a few notes about the sections.
> Since there
> are a couple of sections that I am the point person for, these
> will be
> my "homework". I did want to highlight that section 3.8 (on model
> validity and credibility) needs to be significantly reduced.
> One way to
> do this might be to move some of this content earlier, into the
> introduction, or perhaps into "reproducibility crisis" section.
>
> Hoping this email inspires some folk to do some writing. I'll
> keep
> plugging away at "my" sections. The document is in the same
> location:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VvyP3YZQdQYjj8DFKOpQ4pn_0pdDGgiT/edit?ts=60a294c2
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VvyP3YZQdQYjj8DFKOpQ4pn_0pdDGgiT/edit?ts=60a294c2>
>
> -John G.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.simtk.org/pipermail/vp-integration-subgroup/attachments/20210524/b493bf4c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vp-integration-subgroup
mailing list