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

Missing CONFIDENCE value #69

Open
Treutler opened this issue May 17, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@Treutler
Copy link
Contributor

commented May 17, 2019

There are 10 records having the tag
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE
without any confidence value. I think this should not be valid, so please create a rule for the validator and correct the confidence values.

This applies to:
AAFC/AC000433
AAFC/AC000427
AAFC/AC000428
AAFC/AC000432
AAFC/AC000429
AAFC/AC000425
AAFC/AC000431
AAFC/AC000430
AAFC/AC000434
AAFC/AC000426

@meier-rene

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 17, 2019

This is what we have in CONFIDENCE:

COMMENT: CONFIDENCE
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE:
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Aspergillus sp.
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Claviceps purpurea sclerotia
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE commercial standard
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE: condfident structure
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE: confident structure
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Culture of Fusarium graminearum from DAOM
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Culture of Penicillium eurotium strain
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE extrolite of Fusarium graminearum, NX-chemotype
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Fusarium verticilloides
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Identification confirmed with Reference Standard (Level 1)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE: Identification confirmed with Reference Standard (Level 1)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Identification confirmed with Reference Standard synthesized at Eawag  (Level 1)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE isolated standard
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Parent Substance (Level 1)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Parent Substance with Reference Standard (Level 1)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Penicillium amphipolaria
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Penicillium bissettii
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Penicillium corvianum
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Penicillium diabolicalicense
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE  Penicillium improvisum, Penicillium verrucosum
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Penicillium nucicola
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Penicillium sp.
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Penicillium verrucosum
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Probable structure via diagnostic evidence, tentative identification (Level 2b)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE reference standard
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Reference Standard (Level 1)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE standard compound
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Standard Compound
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE: structure hypothesis
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE synthesized standard
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Tentative identification: best match only (Level 3)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Tentative identification: isomers possible (Level 3)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE: Tentative identification: isomers possible (Level 3)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Tentative identification: molecular formula only (Level 4)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Tentative identification: most likely structure (Level 3)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Tentative identification only (Level 3)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Tentative identification: substance class known (Level 3)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Transformation product, tentative ID (Level 2b)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Transformation product, tentative ID (Level 3)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Transformation product, tentative ID (Level 3 structure)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Transformation product, tentative ID (Level 3 TP Class)
COMMENT: CONFIDENCE Transformation product with Reference Standard (Level 1)

Should we have a controlled vocabulary?

@schymane

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 17, 2019

I've just pinged the contributor of those records by email, I can't find his GitHub handle. They originate from Justin in Canada.

Re controlled vocabulary, yes, some of those are certainly NOT confidence statements but rather statements of origins. We have a standard set of options in RMassBank, which could be a start for a controlled vocabulary. Eventually we should discuss a proper ontology with @sneumann to make various confidence statements compatible with the most commonly-used confidence level schemes (scheme, year, level ...).
For now I'd say anything related to an organism should go into a different COMMENT field?

@schymane

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 17, 2019

... and I could see we could unify some of those where just spacing and capitals are different ... so that we have fewer varieties of the same comment?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.