"Consensus" representation of ETciD and EThcD spectra in MzML

[caetera]

Participating in discussions about OpenMS (OpenMS/OpenMS#7499) and TRFP (compomics/ThermoRawFileParser#182) issues I learned that there is a certain uncertainty as to how spectra with supplemental activation (ETciD/EThcD) should be represented.

Namely, there are two almost equivalent terms in PSI-MS fitting to that kind of fragmentation, and, further, there is a discrepancy in how MSConvert and TRFP represent these spectra. These discrepancies lead to problems with downstream tools.

It would be nice to have a community-recognized way to represent these types of spectra.

I have opened an issue with PSI-MS (HUPO-PSI/psi-ms-CV#285) to determine which CV term is preferred and I would be happy to hear your take on it.

[caetera]

PSI-MS implemented changes - HUPO-PSI/psi-ms-CV#285 - , thus, closing this issue.