Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #4: References to controlled vocabularies
22 Dec '05 11:54
> So what you're proposing is for me to spend extra time making my
> program slower because the community demands compliance? Wow. No
> offense, but that doesn't sound like a good plan.
That was not the proposal. It was simply pointed out that if you receive
an SBML file from someone who chose not to add sboTerms, then it is still
incumbent upon you to interpret the formula with your SBML compliant
software. After all, sboTerms can not enumerate all possible rate laws,
but MathML can. What do you propose to do about all the infinite number
of kinetic formulas that don't have an sboTerm?
> I'd rather have a
> common file format that is so easy to use that there is no need to
> 'ensure compliance'. I will continue my intransigent position until SBML
> is usable For The Rest of Us.
I think we are all waiting for the day that the DWIM data standard gets
approved. Until that day,
a few of us may decide to settle on a standard that results from
> (Can I be the first to coin the phrase 'SBML Nazi'? Akin to
> Fashion/Grammar. Or is that too politically incorrect?)
I, for one, find that term deeply offensive.
> -Howard Salis
> Pedro Mendes wrote:
>>On Thursday 22 December 2005 12:22, Howard Salis wrote:
>>> And if the standard
>>>says the MathML is authoritative...sure, why not. But my program won't
>>> read in the SBML model without the sboTerms because it's impractical
>>> otherwise. O well.
>>Not exactly the spirit that all the other SBML participants usually
>> have... SBML has been successful exactly because tool makers have been
>> committed to using a common file format that all could understand.
>> This has made several of us to end up programming things into our
>> software that was not originally in our plans - but we gained
>> compatibility and our users gained even more. If everyone would take
>> the intransigent position you seem to be taking then there would be no
>> SBML. O well.