-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Package name #3
Comments
Hi, The name is a working title and can change. "MSnio" was chosen for now because a large practical part of the package will be canonical, metadata-rich high-quality import/export of files such as msp, mgf, MassBank. How this lines up with the |
@michaelwitting @Treutler What do you think of MSnPort? ("port" for portable (between formats), import and export.) I agree with @lgatto that the name MSnio promises something different from what we do (that would be more an appropriate name for mzR, for example.) @lgatto do you take issue with using "MSn" which might allude to MSnbase? I just find the name more harmonic like this. |
If all are fine with the prefix "MSn" (because MSnbase is the basis) then I find names like |
My suggestion to use MSschemer was because, as far as I understand, it is an implementation of the MS scheme to translate between schemes and nomenclature of different (metabolomics) spectral library databases. I don't mind to use MSn to make the link with Following up from @Treutler's suggestions, maybe |
If would prefer |
Then possibly |
MSnbRidge, alluding to http://bioconductor.org/packages/3.9/bioc/html/BridgeDbR.html ? |
I just had the
MSnbase
devel call with @jorainer and he updated me about the discussions at the recent metabolomics workshop, including the MS scheme to harmonise the nomenclature and schemes in different metabolomics MS2 databases.My understanding is that this package is meant to implement this MS scheme at the R level. If so, I would suggest to change the package name to reflect this goal more specifically, possibly naming it
MSschemer
(or whatever capitalisation seems more appropriate). This would also avoid confusion with other IO concepts/developments related to MS data.Thank you in advance for considering my suggestion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: