-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
[NTR] add "Raman spatial dimensionality" #28
Comments
@Zack-83 can you please provide more context as to what you mean with this exactly, maybe links to papers? Also have you checked in the Raman spectroscopy branch we import from CHMO in VIBSO, if these "methods" are defined there as special kinds of Raman spectroscopy? For me the question would be if you are refering to a specialization/kind of Raman spectroscopy or to a special kind of output generated by a certain Raman spectroscopy, so focusing on the generated spectrum. |
If you refer to the former, a special kind of Raman spectroscopy, we would have to create new subclasses of either chmo:Raman spectroscopyor chmo:laser Raman spectroscopy, which is probably similar to chmo:two-dimensional infrared spectroscopy. |
I checked. It seems the spatial dimension is not considered in CHMO. |
We have renamed the class and the admitted values to make it clear, that we are only taking about the spatial component. An alternative label ("Raman scan mode") is also provided (see https://github.com/NFDI4Chem/VibrationalSpectroscopyOntology/blob/main/data_examples/Raman_example_data_PTB/Witec/WITec_control_Screen.PNG). This spatial information can be registered independently from the subclasses defined in https://terminology.nfdi4chem.de/ts/ontologies/vibso/terms?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FCHMO_0000656 Concerning the subclasses, we have two questions: who defined them and with which criteria? That classification mixes up different aspects: source, excitation band, enhancement, sample preparation... At least the sample preparation should not be considered, because it has nothing to do with the analytical method used after that. We can help sorting the chaos :) |
Regarding the existing children of CHMO:Raman spectroscopy, all I can say is that we would have to contact @batchelorc or better file an issue in CHMO directly to find out more about their history. My hope was that we can reuse as many of these subclasses as possible and mint new ones only where this is not possible. And once VIBSO is in a more mature state we would have to speak to Colin and the OBI devs anyway to finally decide where should live what. But I think it is best to have a working proposal with VIBSO that can be constructivly discussed with all necessary ontology stakeholders. |
|
Yes, our addition goes in the same direction. But we foresee a third dimension z, which produces three more cases (vertical scan, vertical surface, volume) |
I've been spending quite some time trying to understand the things requested in this issue. What became clear to me from our previous discussions is that the requested "Raman spatial dimensionality" should be understood as the "method" or chosen protocol which specifies how the sample should be scanned when using a certain kind of Raman spectroscopy, like confocal Raman microscopy. It is thus best subsumed under IAO:plan specification, as this class is used in the definition of OBI planned process (the parent of Raman spectroscopies in VIBSO). Yet I think it is best to not label this class "Raman spatial dimensionality" but instead use the suggested synonym "Raman scan mode" to make more explicit what we are actually talking about. Because what isn't clear to me yet with regard to the dimentionaly is whether it should refer to the dimentions in which the sample was scanned or the dimensions of the resulting Raman image. This becomes apparent when we have for example a 1D line mapping that uses a line focused laser beam. The resulting Raman image of an assay implementing this mode would be 2D. What I'm trying to say, is that for VIBSO we need to break it down more fine grained and should probably define the competency questions we need to describe what we actually want to say with these terms. What I'd like to propose concretely for now are these classes:
With these we might then be in the position to define the subclasses of an also new class Raman mapping?
sources used
|
Hallo Philip, we can live with this classification, with minor changes: METHOD SPECIFICATION
PROCEDURE
RESULT
|
The assay type Raman mapping was already defined in CHMO, where it is called 'Raman microscopy' and 'Raman mapping' as well as 'Raman imaging' are provided as synonyms. We thus imported this class from CHMO (see: #127) |
Attribution
ORCID:0000-0001-7694-5519; ORCID:0000-0002-2239-3955
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: