As I understand so far, the 'has_member' relations indicate a set, not a complex. When these occur at the top level, they are converted to Unions of the members. Right now the converter ignores this distinction and collapses all sub-complexes and sub-sets into one long parts list as if they were all equal members of the complex.
It seems like it would be more accurate to capture the set entities properly and attach them as units to the larger complex object. e.g. complex has_part union[a,b] , complex has_part c, etc..
@deustp01 I'm looking at the complex Cyclin E/A:CDK2:p-S130-CDKN1A,p-T187-CDKN1B:CUL1:SKP1:SKP2:CKS1B which contains a mixture of 'has_component' and 'has_member' relationships to its parts.
As I understand so far, the 'has_member' relations indicate a set, not a complex. When these occur at the top level, they are converted to Unions of the members. Right now the converter ignores this distinction and collapses all sub-complexes and sub-sets into one long parts list as if they were all equal members of the complex.
It seems like it would be more accurate to capture the set entities properly and attach them as units to the larger complex object. e.g. complex has_part union[a,b] , complex has_part c, etc..
Thoughts on that?