Forums

F.A.Q. F.A.Q.    Register Register    Login Login    Home Home
Search Search
SBML Discussions » sbml-discuss » SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math' optional in KineticLaw
Show: Today's Posts  :: Message Navigator
| Subscribe to topic 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
AuthorTopic
Nicolas Le Novere


Posts: 469
Registered:
October 2003
Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math' optional in KineticLaw 16 Jan '06 11:57 Go to previous messageGo to previous message


> This is in my opinion an attempt through the back door to make the
> sboTerm authoritative by just omitting the Math element in the kinetic
> law.

No, it is not. It is an issue independant of sboTerm. It is larger than that.

> But let me come to the other pro optional argument given by Mike. The
> kinetic law itself is optional, i.e., we already have the ability to
> store models which are not 'fully fleshed out'. Since we know already
> the list of substrates, products and modifiers, from the reaction
> element

But not the local parameters! So far SBML has been tied to ODE-type
models. But there is an increasing pressure to make it accept other kind
of models.
The ability to store local parameters without a kineticLaw is a desirable
feature for some quantitative descriptions that are not kinetics models
per se (particularly if the parameters are properly annotated ...).

SBML is the Systems Biology Markup Language, not ODE-ML. It was very
clever to restrict its use to one kind of model initially. It was
certainly seminal in its adoption. But it is a fact that SBML is now used
by a much wider community.

In the current situation, the user has the choice between a representaiton
that one can instantiate in a time-serie simulation (with kineticLaw), and
a completely qualitative representation (without kineticLaw). There is
maybe a middle-way.

We are not advocating for a wild explosion of SBML elements here. But on
the contrary for simpler SBML models. Even COPASI could read such models,
even it they would be undetermined. A user would have to complete them to
run simulations. But this is already the case if he/she import a model
from Reactome or KEGG.

The problem is that an empty MathML returns "0". It is not undefined. One
can decide that the following return "0"

<math>
<apply>
</apply>
</math>

while <math /> returns undefined.

--
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


      

SubjectPosterDate
Read Message   SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math' opt... Mike Hucka13 Jan '06 16:15
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Stefan Hoops16 Jan '06 09:06
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'...  Nicolas Le Novere16 Jan '06 11:57
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Stefan Hoops17 Jan '06 06:29
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Nicolas Le Novere17 Jan '06 09:04
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Stefan Hoops18 Jan '06 07:21
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Nicolas Le Novere18 Jan '06 13:22
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Stefan Hoops19 Jan '06 07:03
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Darren J Wilkinson19 Jan '06 13:28
Read Message   RE: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Henning Schmidt18 Jan '06 00:28
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Mike Hucka26 Jan '06 21:02
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Stefan Hoops27 Jan '06 04:58
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Mike Hucka27 Jan '06 17:19
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Stefan Hoops30 Jan '06 05:18
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Mike Hucka30 Jan '06 13:49
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math... Mike Hucka18 Jan '06 22:47
Read Message   RE: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Herbert Sauro23 Jan '06 15:35
Read Message   RE: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... tg23 Jan '06 16:05
Read Message   RE: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Mike Hucka25 Jan '06 18:18
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... jrohwer24 Jan '06 00:07
Read Message   RE: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Nicolas Le Novere24 Jan '06 01:07
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Pedro Mendes24 Jan '06 05:59
Read Message   RE: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Mike Hucka25 Jan '06 18:01
Read Message   RE: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Herbert Sauro24 Jan '06 12:34
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Pedro Mendes24 Jan '06 13:14
Read Message   RE: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Herbert Sauro24 Jan '06 17:28
Read Message   Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Pedro Mendes24 Jan '06 18:27
Read Message   RE: SBML L2v2 specification vote #7: Making 'math'... Herbert Sauro25 Jan '06 10:54
Read Message   Results of L2v2 specification vote #7 Mike Hucka30 Jan '06 13:48
Previous Topic:Fourth release of BioModels Database
Next Topic:SBliD (SBML like Database) release
Go to forum:
-=] Back to Top [=-

Powered by FUDforum. (Copyright Advanced Internet Designs Inc.)

Please use our issue tracking system for any questions or suggestions about this website.