Menu
▾
▴
#150 Unclear if all namespace decls. must appear in RDF blocks
closed
5
2014-05-27
2009-06-24
No
SBML L2v4r1:
In section 6.3, the given RDF template begins like this:
<SBML_ELEMENT +++ metaid="SBML_META_ID" +++ >
+++
<annotation>
+++
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns\#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:dcterm="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:vcard="http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0\#"
xmlns:bqbiol="http://biomodels.net/biology-qualifiers/"
xmlns:bqmodel="http://biomodels.net/model-qualifiers/"
>
What is not clear is whether all of the "xmlns" declarations must be included, or whether a model can limit itself to just the namespaces it actually uses in each RDF block.
I propose that models be allowed to list just the namespaces they actually use, rather than the full set above every time.
I am accepting this issue as valid.
I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.
I am accepting this issue as valid.
I am accepting this issue as valid.
I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.
Since annotations are meant to be written by machine - it is not really a major issue to ask them to write them all; but I agree that the for cv terms the full set is not necessary :-)
I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.
I agree with the proposed change and that it should be done.
Additionally the order is arbitrary as well as the name space identifier.
Since all the votes are in, I'm changing the status of this item to Pending. In addition, I think the group has to be "accepted: changes with conformance implications" because it is conceivable that someone reading the spec literally would implement an SBML reader such that it refuses SBML lacking all the namespace declarations. This could change implementations.
Adding L3v1 as also having this same issue.
Fixed in SVN for both L2v5 and L3v2, and will be part of the forthcoming release of those specifications.