Open katesmith280 opened 1 month ago
Missing: temperature
Question: Do we want a temperature in K, or (also) choice of 'room' 'cryo'? Should this be for the Experiment of for the Dataset?
Acquisition modes; Single multi, unattended. Should be OK.
Missing: Comments section for annotations.
We should probably add that, though it does give the risk that people will use it to add additional parameters that might better dealt with as extensions, either namespaced or at worst generic.
PDB model for molecular replacement
Ultimately these would be connected to a Processing job as reference_data. At the diffraction plan stage this could be done by adding also a processing plan with input parameters and instructions for processing, as well as the connected reference data. For that we would ned a Dataset record that described PDB models (TBD). This Dataset would contain attributes that described the location of the file. It is an open question how the file would be uploaded or presented to the synchrotron or whatever computer ran the processing - that seems to be an operational problem beyond the scope of MXLIMS.
Do we need a humidity attribute? If for the Dataset or the Experiment?
Missing: Anomalous scatterers and Fragment screening - smiles.
These would be dealt with in the Ligand class, which (as noted by Ed Daniel) "needs to be fleshed out by someone competent"
Sample types: Separate mesh loops, multi-sample holders, plates with multiple wells and drops, batch crystallisation.
In principle this can be dealt with, though some bits are still missing.
The core model allows for nested holders, with the preparation
link to PreparedSample allowed at multiple levels. This could give a PreparedSample for each crystal in a multi-crystal holder, or for an entire grid (or shared between several grids). The detailed Sample shipping model only allows for the Sample link at the lowest (crystal) level, so this part of the model needs to be harmonised.
Further, there would have to be a specific schema made for the various SSX-specific holders, as the detailed modelling only covers MX so far.
Non-exhaustive starting list to test against current proposed API draft:
@ejd53 @rhfogh - thank you for looking at these, if anyone can think of other use cases please add them to this thread.