Jonathan Hunter

https://github.com/MassBank/MassBank-web/blob/main/Documentation/MassBankRecordFormat.md#2.4.2 MassBank have a nice implementation, we could do something in this format perhaps?

I have started to develop this further. I have tried to maintain the correct level of ambiguity, such that the sequence of components is unspecified. I have also introduced a...

> There's already an Astral analyzer: Oops, removed the new duplicate Astral and updated the q-orbi-astral MS architecture term accordingly. > I'm not sure about the value of the has_part...

> Why not: > > ``` > is_a: MS:1000463 ! instrument > relationship: has_part_at_position_01 MS:1000081 ! quadrupole > relationship: has_part_at_position_02 MS:1003767 ! collision cell > relationship: has_part_at_position_03 MS:1000084 ! time-of-flight...

> This latest seems good to me. What about swapping "...part..." with "...component..."? Component is longer, but it matches the mzML better, seems a bit more formal, and I think...

Following the above discussion, all intra-instrument component relationships have been removed along with the supporting typedef/terms. I have added a new 'instrument class' parent, in the format of 'instrument model':...

Thanks for the feedback @edeutsch. > "Tribrid" appears to be a Thermo trademarked name (https://documents.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/CMD/brochures/br-65450-ms-orbitrap-eclipse-tribrid-br65450-en.pdf) and so I'm thinking best to avoid using it in the ontology except for formal...

@mobiusklein @chambm Just wanted to reach out and invite any further feedback for this. I'm hoping we might agree to merge in Friday's call.

> My only final quibble is I suggest we remove "novel" in front of ASTRAL. It may seem novel today, but that adjective may not age well. Done!

@chambm @edeutsch I feel like we might be putting too much emphasis on the 'scan' element, and misrepresenting other important elements such as the polarity of the source ionisation process,...