Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.

Close

#268 No validation rule for indirectly recursive functions

closed
nobody
5
2014-07-08
2014-06-26
Lucian Smith
No

The specification forbids indirectly-recursive function definitions, but there is no validation rule that test this (and indeed, libsbml claims that the attached model is valid).

If https://sourceforge.net/p/sbml/sbml-specifications/260/ is accepted, we still need a validation rule for L2v5, and if it's accepted but with the requirement that an attribute be used, we need the validation rule to check that attribute.

1 Attachments

Discussion

  • Lucian Smith
    Lucian Smith
    2014-06-26

    • Group: Accept-conformance-implications --> Reported-Proposed
     
  • Lucian Smith
    Lucian Smith
    2014-06-26

    Since this seems to be a clear omission, I have taken the liberty of fixing the issue in SVN, though the editors still need to vote here. If a different solution is proposed, the SVN can be reverted and changed again.

    If accepted, this change will be incorporated into both L2v5 and L3v2, upon the release of those specifications.

     
  • Michael Hucka
    Michael Hucka
    2014-06-27

    I agree with the proposed changes description in Lucian's 2nd paragraph.

     
  • Frank Bergmann
    Frank Bergmann
    2014-06-28

    I agree this validation rule should be added. But preferably no recursive function definitions are added.

     
  • I agree with the proposed changes

     
  • Lucian Smith
    Lucian Smith
    2014-07-07

    This has now been added to the list of known errata for both specifications, but still needs one more vote (Brett, Sven, and/or Dagmar) before being officially accepted.

     
  • Brett Olivier
    Brett Olivier
    2014-07-08

    I agree the validation rule should be added.

    This does not imply that I necessarily agree with the inclusion of recursive function definitions.

     
  • Lucian Smith
    Lucian Smith
    2014-07-08

    • status: open --> closed
    • Group: Reported-Proposed --> Accept-conformance-implications
     
  • Lucian Smith
    Lucian Smith
    2014-07-08

    And, that's a wrap! Thanks; the validation rule will be added to the upcoming L2v5 and L3v1 specifications.