Invalid RDF annotations

[sbmlsecretary]

SBML Editors,

The annotation section about the model creator(s) is not RDF valid. The page concerned in the specifications is the 95. I posted a full post (with some valid proposals) on SBML discussion mailing list about this issue, cf. http://www.sbml.org/forums/index.php?t=tree&goto=4337&rid=0

-- Camille Laibe Software Developer (Computational Neurobiology), European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge (UK).

Reported by: perkeo

Original Ticket: "sbml/sbml-specifications//114":https://sourceforge.net/p/sbml/sbml-specifications//114

[sbmlsecretary]

Logged In: YES user_id=862059 Originator: NO

I am accepting this issue as valid.

Original comment by: shoops

[sbmlsecretary]

Logged In: YES user_id=862059 Originator: NO

The RDF syntax is clearly wrong and need to be fixed. Another problem is that the current implementation in libsbml does not catch these errors which is very unfortunate. I suggest that libsbml relies on a standard parser such as raptor to do its serialization and parsing.

Original comment by: shoops

[sbmlsecretary]

• status: open --> pending

Original comment by: lenov

[sbmlsecretary]

Logged In: YES user_id=1045203 Originator: NO

I am accepting this issue as valid.

Original comment by: lenov

[sbmlsecretary]

Logged In: YES user_id=343670 Originator: NO

I am accepting this issue as valid.

Original comment by: mhucka

[sbmlsecretary]

Logged In: YES user_id=641982 Originator: NO

I am accepting this issue as valid.

Original comment by: sarahkeating

[sbmlsecretary]

Logged In: YES user_id=343670 Originator: NO

I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.

Original comment by: mhucka

[sbmlsecretary]

• milestone: 678078 --> Accepted:_Changes_with_conformance_implications
• priority: 5 --> 7

Original comment by: mhucka

[sbmlsecretary]

Logged In: YES user_id=1045203 Originator: NO

I agree with proposal (1) of Camille, i.e. changing the parseType="resource". I still prefer on element rdf:description per annotation (let's admit it, this preference is completely arbitrary and irrational).

Original comment by: lenov

[sbmlsecretary]

Logged In: YES user_id=1045203 Originator: NO

I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.

Original comment by: lenov

[sbmlsecretary]

I am adding this note on behalf of Nicolas in order to remind us: the URIs used in the description of BioModels annotations must be changed to the (now-used) URNs.

Original comment by: mhucka

[sbmlsecretary]

I have no strong opinion either way but one description per element makes my libsbml life easier :-)

Original comment by: sarahkeating

[sbmlsecretary]

I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.

Original comment by: sarahkeating

[sbmlsecretary]

I have no strong opinion either way either, so I'll go with whatever Sarah thinks is simpler to implement.

Original comment by: mhucka

[sbmlsecretary]

• priority: 7 --> 9

Original comment by: mhucka

[sbmlsecretary]

• assigned_to: nobody --> lenov
• status: pending --> closed

Original comment by: lenov