Re: [Psidev-ms-dev] Is a <transition> a <target> with an additional <product> ?

[Steffen N. <sne...@ip...>]

Hi,

maybe this suggestion drowned in the mail traffic 
that had accumulated over the holidays, 
so I'll bring this up again. 

The suggestion is to merge <transition> and <target>
into a single concept <target>, where the <product> is optional.

Comments ?

Yours,
Steffen

On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 23:09 +0100, Steffen Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> this might be a bit provocative, but why are <transition> 
> and <target> separated ? 
> 
> Why not rename <transition> to <target>,
> and make the <product> optional ? This comes from 
> somebody who thinks of an MRM experiment 
> as a "degraded" tandemMS measurement (no offense meant).
> 
> If you run tandemMS on peptides, you might still 
> want to annotate the <TargetIncludeList> with 
> peptides etc, just as now the <transition>s.
> 
> To get rid of the multiple toplevel <*List>
> one could have a <TargetList role="include|exclude">,
> and the <TargetList> could have maxOccurs=2,
> but that could make life more difficult 
> for the semantic validators.
> 
> Yours,
> Steffen
> 


-- 
IPB Halle                    AG Massenspektrometrie & Bioinformatik
Dr. Steffen Neumann          http://www.IPB-Halle.DE
Weinberg 3                   http://msbi.bic-gh.de
06120 Halle                  Tel. +49 (0) 345 5582 - 1470
                                  +49 (0) 345 5582 - 0
sneumann(at)IPB-Halle.DE     Fax. +49 (0) 345 5582 - 1409