Re: [Psidev-ms-dev] DTA to mzML conversion

[Fredrik L. <Fre...@im...>]

I think this a reasonable solution. Only minor objection is that 'charge 
state' is to some degree  'possible charge state' in many cases, and it 
will be up to implementers to decide which term to use in the case where 
there is just one value to report. But this is maybe even a nice feature 
to be able to flag that the charge state determination was not certain. 
This 'possible charge state' term seems much better than stating that a 
peak has two charge states, which just feels wrong (if there is not two 
overlapping peaks).

Just wanted to comment on this since I cannot make the telecon tonight 
(or this morning).

Fredrik

Eric Deutsch wrote:
> Okay, I think it is quite reasonable to support this then.  So currently
> we have:
>
> <ionSelection>
>   <cvParam cvLabel="MS" accession="MS:1000040" name="m/z"
> value="445.34"/>
>   <cvParam cvLabel="MS" accession="MS:1000041" name="charge state"
> value="2"/>
> </ionSelection>
>
> Or 
>
> <ionSelection>
>   <cvParam cvLabel="MS" accession="MS:1000040" name="m/z"
> value="445.34"/>
> </ionSelection>
>
> How about we support this:
>
> <ionSelection>
>   <cvParam cvLabel="MS" accession="MS:1000040" name="m/z"
> value="445.34"/>
>   <cvParam cvLabel="MS" accession="MS:100xxxx" name="possible charge
> state" value="2"/>
>   <cvParam cvLabel="MS" accession="MS:100xxxx" name="possible charge
> state" value="3"/>
> </ionSelection>
>
> So this means adding a term for a possible charge state instead of a
> known charge state and then allowing multiple cvParams.
>
> I would say the validation rule is that only 0-1 "charge state" is
> allowed, or alternatively 0-N "multiple charge state" is allowed.
>
> Seem okay?
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
>