[Psidev-ms-dev] MCP response

[Chris T. <chr...@eb...>]

Hi Pierre-Alain, all.

I'm a little nervous that there doesn't seem to have been much 
list traffic on the reponse to the MCP guidelines. The deadline 
is next week (15th)...

Maybe this is all in hand, or even done and already out the 
door, but I am really worried that our big window of opportunity 
to get our views in will lapse.

Incidentally the separation of 'what was done' and 'was it any 
good' was something raised (independently) at a recent 
proteomics PIs meeting I attended in the UK. Opinions were 
strongly expressed (shall we say) there that a HUPO-like 
community effort should determine reporting requirements and 
that journals should only concern themselves with assessing 
quality (internally, or maybe as a group).

I think that we should propose a separation to the Paris group 
where PSI in collaboration with them (re)drafts MIAPE: MSI as 
originally conceived and that the quality measures are pulled 
out into a second document that PSI can also support in a 
limited way for 'journal publication standard' results. I say 
limited firstly because there are a number of journals and we 
wouldn't want to be seen to siding with anyone and secondly 
because quality measures have _never_ been part of our remit; 
and I don't know about everyone else but I have talked to a 
_lot_ of people at various things over the last few years and 
noone has ever questioned our approach with MIAPE (i.e. to not 
address quality).

I may well draft something up myself next week anyway for 
submission as an individual (clearly stating within that mine is 
not a PSI view), but I'd really like to also see what is going 
to go from us as a corporate body.

Cheers, Chris.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  chr...@eb...
  http://psidev.sf.net/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~