|
From: Mark F. B. <sa...@co...> - 2004-12-16 12:16:42
|
While I have Burkhard's attention...(hopefully) (1) Is LCMS its own technique or does it reuse LC and MS? (do hybrid techniques need their own individual definitions?) Let's assume LCMS reuses LC and MS. If ExperimentStep is the application of a technique, then LC and MS Pages go in differnt ExperimentSteps while UV214, UV254, ELS, NCLD all go in the same ExperimentStep. If multi-detector data goes in multiple ExperimentSteps, then how do we hold multiple instances of that hybrid analysis in one file? Or perhaps they shoould all go in the same Exper ExperimentStep. Now we have further possibilities - are these to be grouped together, entered hierarchically in PageSet-Page-PageSet nests? What if you have LCUV and a series of MS spectra with no parent chromatogram? etc. etc. Will each new hybrid technique have to define its own way of nesting data. Perhaps you begin to see why I suggest we do away with nesting and use clearly defined categories and pointers to link them together (keyrefs). If they go in the same ExperimentStep, is there any requirement that they be in a particular order? Could you order them like this: MS1, UV chromatogram, MS5, ELS chromatogram, MS2, TIC chromatogram, MS25, XIC mz215-217 chromatogram, MS4... Inserting data is one thing, parsing another, but attempting to hold large datasets in memory quite another. As a result, AnIML Viewers may have an impossible challenge. I would recommend that we strictly standardize the order of elements in AnIML and also require the creation of a timeline technique to include: timeOffset index character-offsets to each Page\Vector The last item makes viewing large numbers of spectra possible. Without it, AnIML is reduced to a data interchange format and cannot be viewed directly. Which raises the question of character encoding - should we enforce Unicode xxx...thus doubling the size of our base64binary EncodedValueSets. I want to reduce the possible ways to fill AnIML to one. |