Re: [Psidev-qc-dev] Upcoming teleconference Friday 21/06

[Wout B. <wou...@ua...>]

Dear colleagues,

Please find attached a (very limited) example qcML file for the iMonDB. There is still a lot of important information missing, but the most important discussion point is how to represent these instrument parameters and statistical summary values.

According to last month's discussion I've represented the summary statistics as a single quality parameter containing multiple values.

Currently there are no CV terms yet to represent instrument parameters. As there are 100s of different instrument parameters for each different instrument model I typically don't try to interpret these metrics. Therefore I think a general CV term denoting an "instrument parameter" could suffice in this case. And I've specified which parameter we're dealing with as the value of the XML element.
I'm not sure whether or not this would be the best strategy, so this is open for consideration.

I have also some remarks and uncertainties related to Mathias' example file (available on GitHub) to be discussed.

Thanks,
Wout