Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Enumeration ranges

  • To: Brian McMahon <bm@iucr.org>
  • Subject: Re: Enumeration ranges
  • From: "I. David Brown" <idbrown@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
  • Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:34:53 -0500 (EST)
	Howard's comments show us how important it is to get not only the
definitions right but also the names.  At some point we will need to do
some further housekeeping in revising names that are at best misleading
and at worst incorrect.

	The answer to Howard's problem with the enumeration range is for
the writers of software to recognise that a number given as 1.3(2) does
lie in the numeration range 0 to 1 within the experimental uncertainty.
If this interpretation is allowed, there is no need to change the
enumeration range to something that we are not yet able to handle
properly.  This convention could then be applied to any experimentally
determined number that was given with its uncertainty.  An author who
failed to report the uncertainty would then risk having the cif rejected
(and quite rightly too).

*****************************************************
Dr.I.David Brown
Brockhouse Institute for Materials Research, 
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Tel: 1-(905)-525-9140 ext 24710
Fax: 1-(905)-521-2773
*****************************************************

[Send comment to list secretary]
[Reply to list (subscribers only)]