Emek Demir wrote:
> If this is only a visualization problem, you can always keep the long
> complex formation notation in SBML and then at the visualization layer
> you can do something about it. If things are that simple, then it should
> be a no brainer. PATIKA for example goes to a great length to be able to
> manage complexity at the visualization layer. No one will scream at
> anyone for putting a nice 2 on a modifier edge in visualization layer.
> However when you want to introduce ambigous abstractions for the sake of
> visual brevity and at the cost of your fellow SBML parser programmer,
> chances are they won't like it at all..
> ;)
At one level I agree - as I've said in previous posts, this isn't an
issue I feel particularly strongly about. What I really objected to was
the suggestion that this was a half-baked idea from a person who was so
ignorant/stupid that they couldn't pass a basic enzyme-kinetics course!
It clearly isn't. So we agree that it isn't strictly necessary, but as I
said, SBML has lots of features that aren't stricltly necessary... The
question is, will it really make those that don't need it that unhappy?
I don't see why it should.
| 
30 Apr '05 00:47
