Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added the SBOL Visual Ontology v2.3 #133

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 1, 2020
Merged

Added the SBOL Visual Ontology v2.3 #133

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 1, 2020

Conversation

goksel
Copy link
Contributor

@goksel goksel commented Nov 29, 2020

This pull request includes the fixes for issue #96, #88 and #106.

![glyph example](complex-pp-specification.png)
![glyph specification](complex-ps-specification.png)
![glyph specification](complex-pr-specification.png)
![glyph specification](complex-pp-specification.png)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should these really be taken as specifications? They are particular examples of compositions, which could be used canonically, but they are only a few of the many potential compositions.

@goksel
Copy link
Contributor Author

goksel commented Dec 1, 2020

I thought they were specifications. They used to be specifications. Was there an SEP for this? Can we please take them as specifications for now? The alternative SBGN glyph is also provided.

@jakebeal
Copy link
Contributor

jakebeal commented Dec 1, 2020

They've never been specifications in the ordinary sense, which I think is where the confusion came in. Let's go with it for now, though, and we can revisit in the future. I've set up an issue (#136) to track this question.

@jakebeal jakebeal merged commit 648b8ca into develop Dec 1, 2020
@jakebeal jakebeal deleted the issue96_v2 branch December 1, 2020 01:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants