Closed sbmlsecretary closed 2 years ago
Logged In: YES user_id=862059 Originator: NO
I am accepting this issue as valid problem.
Original comment by: shoops
Original comment by: lenov
Original comment by: lenov
Logged In: YES user_id=343670 Originator: NO
I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.
Original comment by: mhucka
Logged In: YES user_id=862059 Originator: NO
I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.
Original comment by: shoops
Logged In: YES user_id=641982 Originator: NO
I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.
Original comment by: sarahkeating
Logged In: YES user_id=343670 Originator: NO
I would say yes, but with two caveats. First, I'm surprised you would be suggesting narrowing the scope to (effectively) rate laws, since you are the one who always says how SBML is bigger than just reaction networks and how shouldn't be constrained from trying to express other kinds of procesess ;-).
The second point (which is more SBO than SBML) is that I think we previous concluded the term "reaction velocity" is a poor choice because of its connotations to enzyme kinetics. Perhaps a more neutral term could be used?
Original comment by: mhucka
Original comment by: lenov
L2V2r1 page 78 line 25
Should the attribute sboTerm of a "kineticLaw" contain the ID of an SBO term belonging to the rate-law subranch instead of the more general mathematical expression? In other word, can an SBML kineticLaw contain something that does not correspond to the definition: "mathematical description that relates quantities of reactants to the reaction velocity."
This change does not imply a schema modification.
(I put a low priority, because a rate-law being a mathematical expression, the current spec is right anyway)
Reported by: lenov
Original Ticket: "sbml/sbml-specifications//39":https://sourceforge.net/p/sbml/sbml-specifications//39