Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Replace syn_type_id with connection_model for synapses. #23

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

matz-e
Copy link
Member

@matz-e matz-e commented Apr 6, 2023

This field should never be empty, but at the very least contain two values corresponding to mod files that have been previously used via syn_type_id.

Follow up to #5.

Follow the convention for node files.  This field should never be empty,
but at the very least contain two values corresponding to mod files that
have been previously used via `syn_type_id`.

Follow up to #5.  Recipe part to be defined in this PR still.
source/sonata_tech.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@matz-e matz-e changed the title Replace syn_type_id with model_template for synapses. Replace syn_type_id with connection_model for synapses. Apr 6, 2023
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think leaving the mandatory start of the synapse type with E or I should be OK, this will simplify the handling on the recipe code side. It can be completely removed later.

I did not add any parameter changes to the specification here, because I don't know which fields will be required for all possible models.

@matz-e matz-e requested review from romani79 and visood April 6, 2023 13:51
Copy link
Collaborator

@jdcourcol jdcourcol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am good with that. I think we can increase the sonata version number because of this change.

@@ -332,6 +333,9 @@ be given for all `SynapsesClassification` elements:
where :math:`ca` denotes the simulated calcium concentration in
millimolar and :math:`y` a scalar such that at
:math:`ca = 2.0:\ u_\text{final} = u`. (Markram et al., 2015)
- `connection_model`, to specify the filename stub (without a final extension) that should
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a matter of personal taste, but I would more easily relate the concepts if this was named synapse_model. Please disregard if we will model connections which are not synapses

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would prefer that we stay with the generic 'model_template' like they have specified for edges in the SONATA paper with Allen: https://github.com/AllenInstitute/sonata/blob/master/docs/SONATA_DEVELOPER_GUIDE.md#representing-edges
In NEURON and other simulators, the generic word 'model' is used for various objects: ion channels, firing behavior, synapse, gap junction, etc

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Whatever is decided, it should match what is chosen for the column in #5. I'd prefer that we don't duplicate names in nodes and edges, simply because it makes it easier to grep for one or the other and it reduces potential confusion, but it's not a deal breaker for me.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

connection_model makes me think about the anatomical connection. synapse_model seems more appropriate to me.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

synapse_model does not work for the reason mentioned by @jamesgking - it is not only about synapses.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants