Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SML best_id_confidence_measure (spec doc 6.3.12) #164

Open
andrewrobertjones opened this issue Jul 23, 2018 · 2 comments
Open

SML best_id_confidence_measure (spec doc 6.3.12) #164

andrewrobertjones opened this issue Jul 23, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@andrewrobertjones
Copy link
Contributor

Relatively minor issue but seems possibly worth fixing, at least while the specs are under review. We are asking file producers to repeat a score type in this column of the SML table, yet they are also reported in the MTD section. It would seem better if we have just use integer codes to reference back to the measure used.

`

MTD id_confidence_measure[1] [MS,MS:1002889,Progenesis MetaScope Score,]
MTD id_confidence_measure[2] [,,Fragmentation Score,]
MTD id_confidence_measure[3] [,,Isotopic fit Score,]
`
...

`
best_id_confidence_measure

[MS,MS:1002889,Progenesis MetaScope Score,]
[MS,MS:1002889,Progenesis MetaScope Score,]
[MS,MS:1002889,Progenesis MetaScope Score,]
[MS,MS:1002889,Progenesis MetaScope Score,]
`

Proposed model:

`
best_id_confidence_measure

1
1
1
1
`

@kayrein
Copy link
Contributor

kayrein commented Aug 6, 2018

Implementation in PR #168

@nilshoffmann
Copy link
Member

nilshoffmann commented Aug 30, 2018

@andrewrobertjones I would put this up for debate whether we want to fix this right now. The spec doc still has the CvParam version inside, the implementation following this "verbose" mode. Can we live with this for now and maybe want to revise this for 2.x? And the current example files all follow this old mode (minus the MTBLS263 one that I corrected in PR #170 )

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants