Jonathan Hunter
Jonathan Hunter
#451 Probably related.
Some example data here for convenience: company | column | pore size | particle size | inner diameter | length | usp | mode | Column name | full description...
> How much of this represents customization of off-the-shelf hardware instead of discrete models of hardware? My feeling based on eye-balling the data is that these are largely off-the-shelf commercial...
> Is the desire to have a canonical identifier for every configuration or something with more hierarchy? I would imagine we would be aiming for something like SepCV < Chromatographic...
The number I suspect we are converging on is ~1800 terms for the Make/Model of the stationary phase (e.g. Waters ACQUITY HSS T3). We are meeting with Michael Witting next...
> I think this is a fine idea as long as we make clear that the old terms are run level attributes and not scan level attributes. It's useful at...
> The idea here is good, but how would it handle the composability of different hardware? Is there a way to handle the variety in cascades like shown here: https://github.com/ProteoWizard/pwiz/blob/master/pwiz/data/vendor_readers/Thermo/Reader_Thermo_Detail.cpp#L236-L442...
@mobiusklein Raised similar points in the PSI-MS call just now. Right now, we are using this type of instrument configuration description in the 'mass analyzer' field on MetaboLights to classify...
Hi @chambm @mobiusklein, Discussed this with the EBI MetaboLights team this morning. In summary, we are aiming to capture the whole instrument configuration (admittedly the current implementation may be imperfect)...
Our use case is pretty loose, is at the file level and does not specify which components of the mass spectrometer were used in what way - this information would...