Re: [Psidev-ms-dev] Option A, B, or C

[Matt C. <mat...@va...>]

Two potential problems with this structure: it drops either the value 
accession number or the category accession number, given that Brian 
suggested it I expect he intended the latter to be dropped and that the 
element name becomes the unique category name.  It also eliminates the 
possibility of having synonyms for the category names, and we can't 
change the element/category name without breaking backward 
compatibility.  I don't really mind about either of these problems, but 
I'm under the impression that others do mind.  So what you're asking 
Angel is what places in the schema have a category cvParam that could be 
set in stone and not allowed to have synonym category names and thus 
converted into this structure instead?

-Matt

Angel Pizarro wrote:
> On 10/4/07, *Brian Pratt* <bri...@in... 
> <mailto:bri...@in...>> wrote:
>
>       It still kind of amazes me that this is a problem we're
>     solving from scratch in a world with W3C schema in it, but I'm
>     trying to
>     play nice since the cvParam thing seems to have unstoppable
>     inertia.  I'd
>     much prefer this:
>     <InstrumentType name="LCQ Deca" accession="MS:1000554" />
>     - that's proper XML, to my mind, as opposed to merely valid XML,
>     and it
>     still leverages the power of the CV.   
>
>
> Actually I would prefer that structure as well and asked on the list 
> for folks to specifically outline places in the schema where this 
> could happen:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=e38f4b170708071310m76356fe5g3f81b5eff44ce2c6%40mail.gmail.com
>
> See the threads from 8/7 - 8/9 for the full discussion, but let me 
> just put it out there that it is not too late to have these types of 
> changes! That's what the public review process is for! I don't think 
> we did a good enough job of communicating to folks that this type of 
> typed CV structure was an option for schema change proposals.
>
> -angel