|
From: Fredrik L. <Fre...@im...> - 2008-03-04 11:02:21
|
Either that, or keep nativeScanReference pointing to the first acquisition in the acquisitionList. I just think that it would get unnecessarily complex to reference all native scans from the index in such a file, but that's just my opinion. Fredrik Rune Schjellerup Philosof wrote: > And in the index you would of course have to leave out the > > nativeScanReference attribute > > -- > Rune > > Fredrik Levander wrote: > >> Hi Rune, >> >> In this case you will not have a <scan> element, or at least not the >> nativeScanReference, but rather an acquisitionList with acquisitions. >> Each of the acquisitions will have a scan reference, which is either a >> reference to an mzML scan, or to a vendor raw data file scan, if I get >> it right. >> >> Regards >> >> Fredrik >> >> Rune Schjellerup Philosof wrote: >> >> >>> Eric Deutsch wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> So it seems like the final suggestion is something like: >>>> <spectrum index="18" id="S2,4,6" > >>>> <scan nativeScanReference="2,4,6"> >>>> </scan> >>>> </spectrum> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> that would be >>> <spectrum><spectrumDescription><scan nativeScanReference="2,4,6"> >>> >>> This would work for cases when each spectrum refers to a single native scan. >>> But aren't there support for having a spectrum that is for instance a >>> combination of several native scans? >>> >>> [Term] >>> id: MS:1000570 >>> name: spectra combination >>> def: "Method used to combine the mass spectra." [PSI:MS] >>> relationship: part_of MS:1000442 ! spectrum >>> >>> >>> What to do in this case? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Rune >>> >>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Psidev-ms-dev mailing list > Psi...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/psidev-ms-dev > |