On 29/11/11 22:18, Darren Wilkinson wrote:
> --- On Tue, 29/11/11, Michael Hucka<email@example.com> wrote:
>> This problem was the original reason why SBO was
>> invented. Adding SBO terms to the model should be
>> enough to help a tool determine the assumptions underlying a
>> Why is that not enough for this?
> Because SBO terms can not (and should not) affect the mathematical interpretation of the model.
Not the mathematical interpretation of the *model*, but the conceptual
framework it is meant to be used with. This is the whole point of the
"modelling framework" branch. Each MathML of the "mathematical expression"
branch carries a semantic element specifically for this purpose.
If I remember well Darren, you attended the dedicated meeting in Boston
that put the initial branches together :-)
> Darren Wilkinson
> email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> www: http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/d.j.wilkinson/
> To manage your sbml-discuss list subscription, visit
> For a web interface to the sbml-discuss mailing list, visit
> For questions or feedback about the sbml-discuss list,
> contact email@example.com
Nicolas LE NOVERE, Computational Systems Neurobiology, EMBL-EBI, WTGC,
Hinxton CB101SD UK, Mob:+447833147074, Tel:+441223494521 Fax:468,
firstname.lastname@example.org, Skype:n.lenovere, twitter:@lenovere
Fight against prostate cancer (and support my moustache):
Donate at http://mobro.co/lenov
To manage your sbml-discuss list subscription, visit
For a web interface to the sbml-discuss mailing list, visit
For questions or feedback about the sbml-discuss list,