| Author | Topic |
|---|
Posts: 469
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #4: References to controlled vocabularies
|
22 Dec '05 10:19
 
|
 |
|
> As Sven already mentioned this might be done when we have experience
> with the use of sboTerms.
I agree with Sven on the fact that we need more experience with sboTerms
before to legiferate on precedence etc.
> However, in my opinion the MathML should
> always be present
But we already have valid SBML files without kineticLaw (Mike, OK, they
are maybe not "SBML-compliant". But they validate fine and they are
existing). In addition, other math element are optional (e.g.
stoichiometryMath).
> In addition, replacing MathML with an sboTerm makes SBML dependent on
> something not under SBML's control.
Absolutely. I am NOT in favour of replacing kineticLaw by SBO terms. This
is only possible in a very limited amount of case anyway.
> The sboTerm at this point in time of its and SBML's evolution only adds
> semantic information and not more.
Yes.
--
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
|
|
|
