[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: Final draft of Phase-ID report
- To: A Working Group of the IUCr Commission on Crystallographic Nomenclature <phase-identifiers@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: Final draft of Phase-ID report
- From: David Brown <idbrown@mcmaster.ca>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:45:41 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <20040708163257.GA17821@gold.iucr.org>
- References: <40E18F8B.6080404@mcmaster.ca><20040708163257.GA17821@gold.iucr.org>
Sam, Thank you for giving your approval to the Phase Identifier report. Clearly in your case the chemcial component of the INChI identifier is likely to be as important as the crystallographic component. I believe there are programs available for creating the INChI structure layer from a knowledge of the connectivity. It will be important to get some experience in using the crystallography-enhanced INChI to find out where it needs some fine tuning. The best solution to the chiral space group problem is to treat chiral pairs as equivalent. Any information about the true chirality should be given in the part of INChI that describes the molecular chirality. I will make the necessary changes to this section before submitting the report. By the way, the real reason for changing IChI to INChI was that people began to scratch themselves as soon as we started talking about IChI. Spurred by the (apparent) recommendations to look at Steve Heller's article, I clicked on the URL but was disappointed in what I found. The paper falls short of its claim in the abstract that it 'surveys ... how XML, CML and the INChI activities are having and will continue to have a major impact on scientific publishing'. I suppose it is the text of a feel-good talk, great for the occasion on which it was delivered but not suitable for publication as a retrievable document (why else would keywords be given?). It is a good example of the dangers of unreferred and unedited web publishing. I not only found the paper uninformative (too many generalities and no substance), but it was a good example of what the paper itself describes as the loser technology - a printed paper in electronic clothing (even the URLs were not active on my browser). Even though it had a good collection of references, I found it a poor advertisement for the virtues of electronic publishing. David -- Dr. I.D.Brown, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada _______________________________________________ phase-identifiers mailing list phase-identifiers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/phase-identifiers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- Final draft of Phase-ID report (David Brown)
- Re: Final draft of Phase-ID report (Brian McMahon)
- Prev by Date: Re: Final draft of Phase-ID report
- Next by Date: RE: Final draft of Phase-ID report
- Prev by thread: Re: Final draft of Phase-ID report
- Next by thread: Re: Final draft of Phase-ID report
- Index(es):