[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
spilt lists in DDL 1.4
- Subject: spilt lists in DDL 1.4
- From: Brian Toby <brian.toby@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:24:52 -0400
I have been following loosely the discussions on _atom_site_aniso_label and want to offer an observation. The fact is that it is common for people to treat only a small fraction of the atoms in a structure with an anisotropic ADP model and for those people it can make sense to have loop of Uij values separate from the main atom loop. For other uses, it makes sense to have a single loop that includes both, where the connection between items becomes implicit. When category rules were retrofitted into CIF via DDL 1.4, the list reference and list key concepts were used as ways to treat this dual usage, though this did not entirely please either the data normalization proponents or their opponent(s). There are a number of other examples in CIF (at least in pdCIF) where data relationships are reorganized because data collection practices or structure model descriptions differ for various types of experiments. The more formality that CIF places on relationships between related data items, the greater chance that someone will come up with a crystallographically useful situation that breaks that relationship. To treat the new paradigm, CIF will have to catch up (fast!) and define an entirely new dictionary populated with previously-defined data items, but having different relationships defined or define a entirely new set of data items with definitions identical with existing items. In the short term, data will be lost from the publication stream, because the standard cannot accommodate it. Further, when there are too many ways for the same information to be included in a CIF, the value of having a standardized format diminishes because it becomes increasing difficult for software to use that information. IMHO, go gently with formalizing data relationships. Brian Toby _______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list cif-developers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: spilt lists in DDL 1.4 (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken
- Next by Date: Draft and analysis of proposed change to DDL1.4 to fix_atom_site_aniso_label
- Prev by thread: Re: Draft and analysis of proposed change to DDL1.4 to fix_atom_site_aniso_label
- Next by thread: Re: spilt lists in DDL 1.4
- Index(es):