-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
Specification for formula format #522
Labels
Comments
Agreed that this would be very important to specify. This might serve as a good starting point http://sbml.org/Special/Software/libSBML/docs/formatted/python-api/libsbml-math.html, but other suggestions are welcome. Happy about any pull request to clarify this in the PEtab documentation. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Which problem would you like to address? Please describe.
Lack of specification of the format for formulae (e.g. observable/noise formulae) in PEtab tables.
Describe the solution you would like
A specification that clarifies acceptable/unacceptable (usage of) symbols (e.g. accepted functions).
Describe alternatives you have considered
One possibility is to use the specification for SBML L3 formulae.
Additional context
The current issue is that many published models use e.g.
beta
andgamma
as parameter IDs, but SymPy interprets these as the Beta and Gamma functions, resulting in linting errors inlibpetab-python
.Don't mind what the specification is in the end (e.g. whether
beta
is considered a function or model component), since it's easy enough to e.g. renamebeta
tobeta_
. The point of the specification would be for consistency in the interpretation of formulae between different PEtab tools.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: