Open nbargnesi opened 12 years ago
It may be preferable to leave it unexpanded, since expansion would result in two edges connecting the nodes, potentially making the network more difficult to interpret
Agreed. We would make the default expansion behaviour consistent with the current compiler and provide whatever other capabilities as optional compiler flags.
Here are the options we've identified:
No expansion.
Two nodes, A and B, connected by the edge
rateLimitingStepOf
. The statement supporting the edge is the statement from the BEL knowledge (e.g.,A rateLimitingStepOf B
).
Expansion.
Two nodes, A and B, connected by two edges
subProcessOf
andincreases
. The statement supporting thesubProcessOf
edge is the statementA subProcessOf B
. The statement supporting theincreases
edge is the statementA increases B
. Both statements are injected by the compiler.
Expansion with preservation.
Two nodes, A and B, connected by three edges (1)
rateLimitingStepOf
, (2)subProcessOf
, and (3)increases
. The statement support, respective of each edge, would be (1)A rateLimitingStepOf B
, (2)A subProcessOf B
andA rateLimitingStepOf B
, and (3)A increases B
andA rateLimitingStepOf B
.
The RATE_LIMITING_STEP_OF relationship is defined as indicating for some A and B:
implies:
Compiler expansion has typically treated relationships like
rateLimitingStepOf
as expanded to the implied relationships.