Yes, this is definitely needed, good idea to discuss at Dagstuhl.

Good... I will collect few ideas for discussion. See you there...

If you want to post ideas here in the meantime, please do - I have some other colleagues we could add to the discussion in advance if needed (e.g. UJI in Castellon)

Idea for Tags and Subtags
AC$ION_MOBILITY

• DRIFT_GAS
• INSTRUMENT_TYPE (DT, TWIMS, TIMS)
• DRIFT_TIME (or comparable value)
• CCS

One of the main question is how to collect instrument parameters, e.g. drift field etc. This is very different for the different instruments.
This review might help with finding the best answers:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mas.21585

Dear all, I am Lubertus (aka Robert) from UJI Castellon. Emma asked us to participate and I hope can add valuable thoughts to this discussion. I also discussed this with my colleague Juanvi Sancho and we agree with the tags suggested by Michael i.e. drift gas, instrument type, drift time and CCS. These are most important. In the future you might have to consider including resolution. It is probably not yet the case, because this should also be defined, but I can imagine that this becomes more important. Waters for example is developing a cyclic IMS with higher resolution than the TWIMS, because with the TWIMS they are a bit behind with the others (TIMS). Manufacturers will probably continue with this development like with HRMS.