Re: [Psidev-ms-dev] Spectra with length 0 in mzData files

[David C. <dc...@ma...>]

Simon,
I can't see any downside in your suggestion. In fact, the following 
validates using Xerces and XMLSpy using the current schema:

       <mzArrayBinary>
         <data precision="64" endian="little" length="0">
         </data>
       </mzArrayBinary>
       <intenArrayBinary>
         <data precision="64" endian="little" length="0">
         </data>
       </intenArrayBinary>

Looks as though
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/datatypes.html#base64Binary

specifies that an empty field is OK for base64Binary

David

simon andrews (BI) wrote:
> 
> On 23 Aug 2005, at 13:38, Tom Blackwell wrote:
> 
>> Simon and Randy  -
>>
>> Both of you are pointing to the need for explicit "missing value" codes
>> in the schema -- in this case, a "missing spectrum" code.  Either it's
>> a separate field, "spectrum supplied" which is normally true, or it's a
>> reserved value in some other field, say 'length="0"' as below, with an
>> explanation in the schema explaining that 'length="0"' MEANS that the
>> actual spectrum is missing, and what's there in its place should have
>> length 1 and should be ignored.
> 
> 
> It certainly seems odd to me to have this extra check value which 
> doesn't always function as expected.  At the very least this behaviour 
> should be documented in the annotated schema files (which I don't think 
> it is at the moment).
> 
> At the risk of baring my ignorance of XML - if there are legitimate 
> cases where this field is not supplied would this not suggest that the 
> field shouldn't be mandatory in the schema?  As long as the 
> mzArrayBinary and internArrayBindary elements are present a parser 
> should be able to cope with the data element being absent or having a 
> length of 0.
> 
> Simon.

-- 
David Creasy
Matrix Science
8 Wyndham Place
London W1H 1PP
Tel +44 (0)20 7723 2142
Fax +44 (0)20 7725 9360

dc...@ma...
http://www.matrixscience.com