Skip to content
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
177 changes: 177 additions & 0 deletions SEPs/SEP_V026.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
# SEP V026: Introduction of “//” as a Glyph for Generic DNA Breaks in SBOL Visual



| SEP | |

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The table is not formatting correctly due to this extra line breaks.

There are a bunch of other places below with formatting problems too - please review visually and clean up accordingly.

| --- | --- |

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

| **Authors** | Georgie Hau Sorensen (georgiehausorensen@gmail.com), Lukas Buecherl |

| **Editor** | Felipe Buson (fxbuson@gmail.com)|

| **Type** | Specification |

| **SBOL Visual Version** | |

| **Status** | Draft |

| **Created** | 26 Feb 2026 |

| **Last modified** | 26 Feb 2026 |

| **Issue** | |





## Abstract

This proposal introduces a new SBOL Visual glyph, represented by the character sequence “//”, to denote generic breaks in DNA. These breaks include regions where sequence continuity is intentionally unspecified, undefined, interrupted, or skipped for schematic clarity. The use of “//” aligns with widespread conventions in biological schematics and provides a simple, intuitive, and compact symbol to improve readability.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this being proposed as an alternative glyph to omitted detail, or as a separate glyph?

  • If the former, then it should be proposed as such.
  • If the latter, then we need to have a clear distinction made about what differentiates the two.




## Table of Contents <remove TOC if SEP is rather short>

- [1. Rationale](#rationale)

- [2. Specification](#specification)

- [3. Example or Use Case](#example)

- [4. Backwards Compatibility](#compatibility)

- [5. Discussion](#discussion)

- [References](#references)

- [Copyright](#copyright)



## 1. Rationale <a name="rationale"></a>



1.1. Widespread Use

The “//” mark is traditionally used in biological schematics to indicate:

- “region removed/not drawn”

- “break in continuity”

- “shift in sequence”

This convention is common in textbooks, research illustrations, and even circuit diagrams in other fields.

The familiarity of this symbol lowers the cognitive load for new users, and it makes diagrams more immediately interpretable.



1.2. Glyph Simplicity

The “//” glyph:

- Is visually compact

- Does not resemble any existing SBOL Visual glyph
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Per the discussion on SEP V003, there is a significant potential for confusion with blunt restriction site. I also see potential for confusion with pairs of stem-only DNA locations.

We can still use this glyph, but we need to be explicit about the potential confusion and our SHOULD recommendations to people in order to mitigate it.


- Can be rendered easily in both digital and hand-drawn form

- Maintains clarity even at small scale



## 2. Specification <a name="specification"></a>

2.1. Glyph Definition
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In prior SBOL Visual SEPs, we have always had a draft implementation of the glyph on a branch, in order to ensure that it is fully defined before the vote begins. What does in this section is then all the substantive elements of the diff between that branch and the main:

See, for example, SEP V011 on genomic context:

Until this specification is fully defined, we can't really know enough to properly approve.




The “//” glyph consists of two short, parallel, diagonal slashes.



These may be oriented:

- Forward-slanted (primary, recommended)

- Backward-slanted (optional alternative for stylistic compatibility with other diagram elements)



2.2. Placement

The glyph placed in-line on a DNA backbone to indicate that:

- A region of arbitrary length is not shown

- Sequence continuity is intentionally omitted



Example:



[ promoter ] —— // —— [ CDS ]



2.3. Semantic Meaning

The glyph may represent a non-specific sequence gap



## 3. Backwards Compatibility <a name='compatibility'></a>

This SEP is backward compatible insofar as it doesn't directly introduces conflicts with existing glyphs. There is an argument to be made whether its function can be fully covered using the existing "engineered region" glyph. It is worth noting that any diagrams without this introduced break glyph will remain valid.



## 4. Discussion <a name='discussion'></a>



## Copyright <a name='copyright'></a>



<p xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:vcard="http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#">

<a rel="license"

href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">

<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/zero/1.0/88x31.png" style="border-style: none;" alt="CC0" />

</a>

<br />

To the extent possible under law,

<a rel="dct:publisher"

href="sbolstandard.org">

<span property="dct:title">SBOL developers</span></a>

has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to

<span property="dct:title">SEP V001</span>.

This work is published from:

<span property="vcard:Country" datatype="dct:ISO3166"

content="US" about="sbolstandard.org">

United States</span>.

</p>
Loading