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

[Brian P. <bri...@in...>]

I'll take a shot at auto-generating a schema from the OBO tomorrow.  I'm
curious to know if I'm just blowing smoke or not..

 

- Brian

 

  _____  

From: psi...@li...
[mailto:psi...@li...] On Behalf Of Angel
Pizarro
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 5:17 PM
To: Mass spectrometry standard development
Subject: Re: [Psidev-ms-dev] Option A, B, or C

 

On 10/4/07, Brian Pratt <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=e38f4b170708071310m7
6356fe5g3f81b5eff44ce2c6%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