Forums

Hi Stefan

shoops wrote:
>> We will add a flag to the addCVTerm function that will allow you to
>> choose whether the term is added to an existing bag or not :-)
>
> This is the wrong aproach. It is about formating and not about
> contents. There is no difference in the meaning between the two and
> libsbml MUST NOT differentiate

But surely if people want the option of either producing

A)

<bqbiol:hasPart >
<rdf:bag>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://some.uri.thing.1"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://some.uri.thing.2"/>
</rdf:bag>
</bqbiol:hasPart >

Or B)

<bqbiol:hasPart >
<rdf:bag>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://some.uri.thing.1"/>
</rdf:bag>
</bqbiol:hasPart >
<bqbiol:hasPart >
<rdf:bag>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://some.uri.thing.2"/>
</rdf:bag>
</bqbiol:hasPart >

it is not a problem for libSBML to offer the option ?

The SBML Spec says

"Several relation elements with a given tag, enclosed in the same SBML
element, each represent an alternative
annotation to the SBML element. For example two bqbiol:hasPart elements
within a Species SBML
element represent two different sets of references to the parts making
up the the chemical entity represented
by the species. (The species is not made up of all the entities
represented by all the references combined)."

So in fact A and B above do represent different semantics; so we would
want libSBML to support this. It doesn't actually at present :-(

Sarah
____________________________________________________________
To manage your sbml-interoperability list subscription, visit
https://utils.its.caltech.edu/mailman/listinfo/sbml-interoperability

For a web interface to the sbml-interoperability mailing list, visit
http://sbml.org/Forums/

For questions or feedback about the sbml-interoperability list,
contact sbml-team@caltech.edu