May be wwPDB should introduce a clause that all structure depositions
(upon release) must allow raw images accessible to anyone upon request
provided the requester pays (for postage and/or CD/DVD - if applicable).
This may be followed until google/NSA will offer free and _reliable_
storage in a neighbouring planet forever.
AFAIK, GPL based software agreements work like this.
Karthik
Bernhard Rupp wrote:
Maybe I was misunderstood. There is no doubt in my opinion and that of those
that have put effort into image conservation issues years ago that
keeping and archiving the images is more than desirable, for precisely
the reasons mentioned.
Nail my nauseating spell checker for the nausea that may have caused you.
Cheers, BR
-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Gerard
Bricogne
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:03 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] images
Dear Bernhard,
I suppose you meant "ad nauseam" ;-) .
In any case, what is the use of discussions and recommendations that
are not followed by action, and only result in making their contributors
themselves nauseated to the point of wanting to "put this to rest"?
As Ethan has nicely stated in his reply to Garib's double-check of
whether we do need images, this matter should NOT be put to rest: it should
be dealt with. As was argued at the end of the paper by Joosten, Womack et
al. (Acta Cryst. D65, 176-185), the main advantage of depositing images
would be that it would enable and stimulate the further developement and
testing of image integration and data processing software, to the same
degree that the deposition of structure factors has stimulated progress and
testing for structure refinement software.
Far from a boring issue only capable of giving headaches to Standards
Committee members, this is a vital issue: with each undeposited set of
images that contributed in one way or another to the determination or
refinement of a deposited structure, there disappears an opportunity to test
improvements in methods and software that would be likely to improve that
deposited entry (and most others) at a future stage. I think we need to take
a long view on this, and abandon the picture of the PDB as a static archive
of frozen results: instead, it should be seen as a repository of what is
required not only to validate/authenticate the deposited models, but to feed
the continued improvement of the methods used - and hence, at the next
iteration, the constant revision and improvement of those very models. In
what way can this topic be a source of nausea?
With best wishes,
Gerard.
--
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:16:42AM -0700, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
As Herb will attest, the need for keeping images and the various reasons
for it have been discussed ad nauseum and agreed upon in various imgCIF
meetings - I am sure Herb or Andy Howard can provide links to the
documents/recommendations, to put this to rest.
Best, BR
Past ACA Data Standards Committee serf
-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Kay
Diederichs
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:02 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] images
