Through the whole SBML specification both terms "Sbase" and "SBase" are used similarly frequent. I would like to suggest to use only one of both terms in the document.
There is a conundrum in choosing the spelling: the UML diagram in Figure 8 uses "Sbase", but the XML Schema uses "SBase". An informal poll among the editors over the sbml-editors mailing list suggests that SBase is preferred by at least 2 editors and the Chair.
The proposed solution is therefore to use SBase.
This matter should not have SBML conformance implications, because the SBase name is never written out in SBML (it's an abstract data type).
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
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:
I'm amazed no one (including myself) has not noticed this before, for years and years ...
Yes, this is definitely a repeated typographical error.
I am accepting this issue as valid.
I am accepting this issue as valid.
I am accepting this issue as valid.
There is a conundrum in choosing the spelling: the UML diagram in Figure 8 uses "Sbase", but the XML Schema uses "SBase". An informal poll among the editors over the sbml-editors mailing list suggests that SBase is preferred by at least 2 editors and the Chair.
The proposed solution is therefore to use SBase.
This matter should not have SBML conformance implications, because the SBase name is never written out in SBML (it's an abstract data type).
I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.
I am accepting this issue as valid.
I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.
Since we appear to have a majority in favor of uniformly changing this to SBase, I'm moving the status to "Pending" and accepted without conformance implications. I'm also adding it to the errata list at http://sbml.org/Documents/Specifications/SBML_Level_2/Version_4/Collected_Errata_to_the_SBML_Level_2_Version_4_Specification
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).
Should this be closed?
Looks like this was automatically changed from 'pending' to 'closed' by the bot; re-setting it to 'pending'.
BTW, this was fixed in L3v1, though L2v4 may still suffer from it.
Just checked the L2v4 spec, and can confirm it's still there.
Fixed in SVN for L2v5, and will be part of the forthcoming release of that specification.