Voting for SEP_V026 | Introduction of “//” as a Glyph for Generic DNA Breaks in SBOL Visual

[ERIK-KE]

Herewith, we start the discussion and voting on SEP V026 (Pull Request #171) with the title 'Introduction of “//” as a Glyph for Generic DNA Breaks in SBOL Visual'.

The discussion starts as of today and will close on 22.03.2026 (anywhere on earth). Afterwards, we start the voting phase, which will close on the 29.03.2026 (anywhere on earth).

Please discuss the SEP in this thread by commenting on the issue.

In the voting window (23.03.2026 till 29.03.2026), all members of the SBOL Developers Group are eligible to vote.
You can vote by commenting to this issue with one of the following possible vote options.:

• accept — vote to accept the SEP
• reject — vote to reject the SEP
• abstain — no opinion, abstain votes will not be counted when determining majorities
• defer / table for further discussion — keep the SEP in draft stage so that it can be again put to a vote after further discussion and amendment (in contrast to “abstain” this vote will be counted when determining majorities).

For further information, please see SBOL Governance.

[jakebeal]

There are a couple of key things that I think need to be dealt with before this can be accepted:

1. Relationship to "omitted detail": is this an alternative glyph or does it have a separate definition?
2. The proposal needs recommendations for how to avoid confusion with blunt restriction site and DNA location.
3. We need a full draft specification on a branch to be able to properly review.

I have put more details on my review of the pull request.

[fxbuson]

I second that functionally this fits as just an alternative to "ommited detail". It would be even easier to add to the standard.

I think the proposed glyph is sufficiently different from blunt restriction site , since the slashes are not brackets and are required to be angled. DNA location is even more distinct, with a single line in a straight angle, that doesn't show a break on the DNA strand.

[jakebeal]

@fxbuson Remember that SBOL Visual also has to be distinguishable in hand-writing, which means we may end up with things that look like this:

That horrible diagram I just drew contains a mix of omitted detail, blunt end restriction sites, and DNA locations. Can a viewer tell which is which?

The confusion requirement is a s "SHOULD NOT" rather than a "MUST NOT", so we can still use this glyph. But the notes on this glyph and its potential confusion partners should be expanded to explain the potential confusion and give guidance for how to avoid it (i.e., use the non-confusable glyphs if you expect the others to be in a diagram, keep your DNA location on one side of the line, make your angles and your brackets highly distinct)