Typo on page 96

A file format for exchanging computational models in systems biology

Brought to you by: fbergmann, luciansmith, mhucka, niko-rodrigue, sarahkeating

#139 Typo on page 96

Milestone: Accept-no-conformance-implications

Status: closed

Owner: Frank Bergmann

Labels: Level 2 Version 4 (47)

Priority: 5

Updated: 2014-05-27

Created: 2009-02-10

Creator: Sarah Keating

Private: No

Reported by Andreas Drager via email to SBMLTeam:

From my perspective, it seems that on page 95, lines 16 and 17 of the
latest SBML specification model qualifiers and biological qualifiers got
mixted up. The sentence states that the namespace for model qualifiers
can be found at http://biomodels.net/biology-qualifiers/, whereas the
namespace for biological qualifiers is located at
http://biomodels.net/model-qualifiers/. Also the abbrevations bqbiol and
bqmodel seem to be misplaced. Maybe I am wrong but I thing this is just
a typo.

Discussion

Michael Hucka - 2009-02-24

milestone: --> 678078
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Michael Hucka - 2009-02-24

I am accepting this issue as valid.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Stefan Hoops - 2009-02-24

I am accepting this issue as valid.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Frank Bergmann - 2009-03-16

I am accepting this issue as valid.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Frank Bergmann - 2009-03-16

The paragraph in question should be replaced by:

The list is divided into two namespaces one for model qualiﬁers http://biomodels.net/model-qualifiers/ (preﬁx used here bqmodel) and the other for biological qualiﬁers http://biomodels.net/biology-qualifiers/ (preﬁx used here bqbiol). This list will only grow i.e no element will be removed from the list.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Frank Bergmann - 2009-03-16

assigned_to: nobody --> fbergmann

status: open --> pending
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Sarah Keating - 2009-03-16

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

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Sarah Keating - 2009-03-16

status: pending --> open
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Sarah Keating - 2009-03-16

status: open --> pending
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Michael Hucka - 2009-03-23

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

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Michael Hucka - 2009-05-08

milestone: 678078 --> Accepted:_Changes_without_conformance_implications

status: pending --> closed
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Michael Hucka - 2009-05-08

Nobody is disputing this. Although we technically didn't get a 2nd editor to agree to the change (I [Hucka] don't count as an editor for voting purposes), nobody in their right mind will complain about this one because the issue is so clear. I'm closing it so that we can get on to more important matters.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Michael Hucka - 2009-05-12

status: closed --> pending
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Michael Hucka - 2009-05-12

I made a mistake in setting the status to "Pending" previously. Our standard procedure is that an issue stays "Pending" until it is fixed in the next release of a specification. Only the group should have been changed at this point.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Sven Sahle - 2009-05-15

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

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

SourceForge Robot - 2011-05-12

status: pending --> closed
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

SourceForge Robot - 2011-05-12

This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
did not respond within 730 days (the time period specified by
the administrator of this Tracker).

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Lucian Smith - 2012-05-24

Re-set to Pending. This is an l2v4 issue, not l2v5-only.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Lucian Smith - 2012-05-24

status: closed --> pending
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Nicolas Le Novère - 2012-12-21

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

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Lucian Smith - 2014-05-27

status: pending --> closed
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Lucian Smith - 2014-05-27

Fixed in SVN for L2v5, and will be part of the forthcoming release of that specification.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Log in to post a comment.