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

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

Hi Steffen,

I think your suggestion is fine and should be working. 
InterpretationList/Interpretation, now part of  Transition, would be 
explaining different things for included ions and transitions, though.

Even if such a change would simplify the XML schema which is good, I am 
afraid that it would make reading of the documents a bit harder - you 
would still like to distinguish between include targets and transitions, 
I believe.  So in the end the current representation with separate 
transition and target elements seems preferable to me. Or are there any 
other practical advantages with merging of the two? Note that targets in 
the include list can already be annotated with peptide information - 
actually they have to be, in order to have a retention time.

Thanks

Fredrik


Steffen Neumann wrote:
> 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
>>
>>     
>
>
>