Key-value pair types?

[meowcat]

Hi @michaelwitting @Treutler,
What do you think of allowing "key-value pair" / "named-array" types in the schemas?
Examples

• COMMENT, in MassBank, is a field with free key-value associations e.g.

COMMENT UCHEM_ID 2323
COMMENT CONFIDENCE standard compound

• CH$LINK is much easier stored as a key-value pair rather than specifying every possible link type separately. (And if you want to do an SQL database, I would recommend you do it relationally there too.)

[meowcat]

But now I am doubting this again, since the database id names are different between different spectral formats, so they need to be translated...

[meowcat]

I think this can be solved in a "hybrid" way if the deep mapping will work correctly. There might not be a need for hierarchy in the fields definitions themselves. But I would still consider an optional "parent" specification. (For my current way to specify the fields, see fields.yaml. This can change in the future)

[sneumann]

Hi, are we aware of an "athoritative" comparison / mapping between flavours ?
I was thinking about a google doc spreadsheet with corresponding field names.
Did we start something like that at some stage ? Yours, Steffen

[michaelwitting]

We started this back at the hackathon:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IGgtA6FL5lt9ajDSb0WR90qQfHtebDtcfyjX86tC_JQ/edit?usp=sharing