change name from calcium model to Kohl_2022

[stephanie-r-jones]

For consistency in naming the different models that can be used in HNN-core, we should change the name of the "calcium model" to the "Kohl_2022" model. The description of the model is enough for users to know that there is improved calcium dynamics in the Layer 5 PN. We should be moving toward using this as the default model, and to recommending that people do so.

[stephanie-r-jones]

its Kohl_2021, not 2022

[rythorpe]

If I recall correctly, we were originally waiting for Sarah to publish her paper so that she'd get credit for the model when we rename it with our "author_year" naming convention. Do you think we should rename it now as "kohl_2021" or wait for Sarah's paper? Once we rename it, I'd hesitate to ever change it in order to provide API consistency as well as publication consistency since users will start associating the HNN-core template model with a specific paper (maybe they already do though...).

[jasmainak]

We don't have a "default" model per se, do we? We just import the model in an example and use it ... so it would just be a matter of updating the docs and nothing to change in the API?

[stephanie-r-jones]

It's a good point about Sarah. Due to her busy grad school life, I'm not sure she will get to publishing the paper and we may need to bring in another person to finalize. It's an exciting and important paper! Two concerns: 1) The new GUI should use the Kohl_2022 model, and as such this becomes the new "default" that the community will use. I've been encouraging anyone using the old GUI to import the new calcium, and this is now standard practice in our lab and in collaborations. 2) I'd like to establish a standard naming convention for new models that are developed and used in HNN workflows. Particularly, as we develop a framework for importing Netpyne models.

Let's leave this issue open and discuss at our next HNN meeting. Perhaps a strategy could be to see where we are at in the paper publishing once the new GUI and is associated tutorials are finalized.

[samadpls]

This looks like a good starting point. can I take this issue? 😋

[rythorpe]

Unfortunately we might need to wait on this issue @samadpls. If I recall correctly, we recently discovered that calcium_model is implemented slightly differently than the model in Kohl 2021. Copying @ntolley @darcywaller @jasmainak to confirm.

[jasmainak]

I removed the tag "good first issue" because it seems that this would need scientific discussion/digging into the parameters.

[rythorpe]

Sorry about that @samadpls!