Repository navigation
GPML vs. wpTypes vocab #12
Description
ArrowHead type names are not consistent across our projects. For just one example:
wp vocab: Binding
wpTypes vocab: MimBinding
Actual GPML: mim-binding
<Interaction>
<Graphics ZOrder="12288" LineThickness="1.0">
<Point X="419.0" Y="208.0" GraphRef="e9078" RelX="-1.0" RelY="0.0" />
<Point X="160.75" Y="103.25" GraphRef="f2588" RelX="0.0" RelY="1.0" ArrowHead="mim-binding" />
<Anchor Position="0.4" Shape="None" />
</Graphics>
<Xref Database="" ID="" />
</Interaction>If the purpose of the wpTypes vocab is to help keep our projects harmonized, it needs to be in sync with actual GPML.
Activity
mkutmon commentedon Feb 17, 2017
Yes! In the wp vocab it's different because it's the real semantics described there (so if we would support sbgn then sbgn-binding would also be mapped to WP vocab Binding).
As said - I didn't look at the WPType vocab in detail yet but there is definitely still lots of work to do! And yes it should be the same as in the GPML!
[-]GPML vs. wp vocab vs. wpTypes vocab[/-][+]GPML vs. wpTypes vocab[/+]ariutta commentedon Feb 18, 2017
Thanks @mkutmon! We can either change wpTypes to match PathVisio's GPML, or we can use this GPML update to make PathVisio's GPML reflect what's in wpTypes. Do you have a preference?
ariutta commentedon Feb 18, 2017
Does this issue belong in the PathVisio/pathvisio repo? The 2013a xsd doesn't reference any of the mim types.