Forums

Mike,

I think that the labels used to name elements and attributes are a bit
unimportant if they are well defined. The past tentatives to "correct"
them triggered a lot of compatibility problems, and I don't think they
changed anything (specie <=> species, annotation <=> annotations).
Who cares if an element is called "species", "object", "entity" of
"thingy", as far as a parser reads the value correctly and provides to
the reading soft:
"thingy1" + "thingy2" -> "thingy3"

You want to develop a simulator of population dynamics? You just map
"species" to "population" in the GUI.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Michael Hucka wrote:

> Was it a mistake, then, to use "species", "reactant", etc.?
> Should the consistuents of the language have been made more
> abstract?


--
Nicolas LE NOVÈRE, Computational Neurobiology,
EMBL-EBI, Wellcome-Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK
Tel: +44(0)1223 494 521, Fax: +44(0)1223 494 468, Mob: +33(0)689218676
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~lenov AIM screen name: nlenovere