SBML.org — the global portal for all things SBML

Level 3 Package Proposal Voting Results: arrays

The call for votes for the 'arrays' package was issued on November 29 and closed on December 14, 2012. A total of 17 votes were cast.

The outcome of this vote is accept.

This outcome is based on the final question of the survey, which had four mutually-exclusive choices: Accept (proposal addresses a need that SBML should cover, and the approach clearly follows the stated principles), Reject (proposal does not address a need that SBML should cover), Revise (approach either does not follow the stated principles, or there is insufficient information to tell if it does), or Abstain, (I cannot fully assess the proposal as given, or do not wish to state an opinion). The following graph presents the results for this question:


The voting for this package proposal used an updated format that requested additional information from voters. The responses for each of these additional questions are reported separately below. The comments written by respondents for the overall assessment question are provided at the end of this page.

Question about UTILITY

The question was posed as follows: Utility: the package addresses a problem whose solution SBML users are likely to find useful. It had four possible answer choices: (a) Agree, (b) Disagree, (c) Insufficient info, and (d) Abstain.

The following graph shows the overall total responses:


There were no comments left by responders for this question.

Question about BIOLOGICAL ORIENTATION

The question was posed as follows: Biological orientation: the package's overall aim is to support the description of biological processes and phenomena. It had four possible answer choices: (a) Agree, (b) Disagree, (c) Insufficient info, and (d) Abstain.

The following graph shows the overall total responses:


The following are the individual comments written by respondents. The votes in particular are indicated in parentheses before the comments.

  • (Voted 'Disagree') This is purely a mathematical construct (it even has to extend MathML, which to me indicates that this should be defined in the realm of MathML). What happens if MathML later define these constructs (in a different way)?

Question about COHERENCE

The question was posed as follows: Coherence: the package extends SBML in a way that follows naturally from Level 3 Core and other packages. It had four possible answer choices: (a) Agree, (b) Disagree, (c) Insufficient info, and (d) Abstain.

The following graph shows the overall total responses:


The following are the individual comments written by respondents. The votes in particular are indicated in parentheses before the comments.

  • (Voted 'Agree') This will be the trickiest bit to accomplish in the final spec, but I trust the designers.
  • (Voted 'Insufficient info') "How will it relate to the "groups" package and the proposed "dyn" package?"
  • (Voted 'Insufficient info') I'm not convinced that arrays will work as a package as it redefines the type system of SBML. Hence Insufficient info.

Question about ORTHOGONALITY

The question was posed as follows: Orthogonality: within reason, the package does not duplicate the purpose or data captured by other packages. It had four possible answer choices: (a) Agree, (b) Disagree, (c) Insufficient info, and (d) Abstain.

The following graph shows the overall total responses:


The following are the individual comments written by respondents. The votes in particular are indicated in parentheses before the comments.

  • (Voted 'Insufficient info') "Again, how will "Arrays" relate to the "groups" package and the proposed "dyn" package?"

Question about overall assessment

In addition to asking for an overall assessment (the response to which is the first result on this page), the survey also provided space for respondents to include comments with their overall assessment. The following are the explanations that people provided, together with the way they voted on the overall assessment question.

  • (Voted 'Revise') The information given here is too sparse, the link to more information that was given did not yield more information. Furthermore the examples discussed at past meetings did seem problematic at best. So the best I can say is that there is insufficient information to tell whether it meets the guidelines given. I would have loved to hear more about the approach before the vote ...
  • (Voted 'Revise') Given that I said insufficient info to the Coherence question I can't accept. But if we can demonstrate that arrays will work as a package then yes I would accept.
  • (Voted 'Reject') I believe the constructs that are specified here should be defined upstream, in MathML.
  • (Voted 'Reject') At this point is absolutely unclear what new modeling capabilities will be generated. Examples of models which can not be presented with the current SBML packages must be provided.


Please use our issue tracking system for any questions or suggestions about this website. This page was last modified 18:29, 17 December 2012.