SBML.org — the global portal for all things SBML

Level 3 Package Proposal Voting Results: req

The call for votes for the 'req' package was issued on December 4 and closed on December 19, 2012. A total of 8 votes were cast. There were no duplicates or unverified voters.

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 with 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') Since it is an artificial construct to allow modellers to indicate their intent it serves no particular biological purpose.
  • (Voted 'Disagree') This is purely technical.

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:


There were no comments left with this question.

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:


There were no comments left with this question.

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'): I am not sure a package should be created for just two attributes. These could go in the core L3V2 ? I thought that this package will be more a package to put common elements and attributes that we don't want to have in the core and that can be (or are) used by several packages. The current name of the package is a bit misleading, I think. At the moment, the two attributes proposed are related to the interpretation of math and I don't think they will be required attributes but more optional attributes.
  • (Voted 'Revise'): it seems clear that all this package does, is to provide a technical cludge that could *in theory* maybe help tools that don't understand a package to do *something* with a model. I am not sure that this package provides much in addition to the required flag that SBML core already has. Moreover, it is seems entirely possible for a math element to be changed by two packages. It seems entirely reasonable to use arrays and distrib together. It would be good if that could be expressed with the package, which it can't currently. The one package that currently uses req, spatial, could work nicely without it.
  • (Voted 'Revise'): This is overly complex. For example if someone created a spacial model he or she is not concerned whether it is possible to have an equivalent core model. If there would be an equivalent core model the spatial model would be obsolete.
  • (Voted 'Abstain'): I do not quite understand some points here: - Will it be expected or required that any package that extends math actually uses the req package? If yes, this should be stated. - How will the case be handled that one element is extended by several packages?

Retrieved from "http://sbml.org/Community/Wiki/SBML_Level_3_Proposals/Surveys/Level_3_Package_Proposal_Voting_Results:_req"

This page was last modified 17:14, 23 December 2012.



Please use our issue tracking system for any questions or suggestions about this website. This page was last modified 17:14, 23 December 2012.