Dear Bernhard,
Re-reading your previous message, I can see that I did indeed misread
it, and I apologise for that. Perhaps it was the expression "put to rest" in
relation to a topic where so much action is needed that made me charge in
the wrong direction.
Although this "thread" is now attracting additional suggestions about
what else it might be a good thing to archive, this should not result in a
dilution of the urgency of this particular item. As for the argument that
any new task can only be done if there is extra money, then isn't this the
ideal time to argue that we need a "PDB stimulus package"? After all, the
PDB is a bank ... .
With best wishes,
Gerard.
--
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:14:29PM -0700, 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
>
> --
>
> ===============================================================
> * *
> * Gerard Bricogne g...@globalphasing.com *
> * *
> * Global Phasing Ltd. *
> * Sheraton House, Castle Park Tel: +44-(0)1223-353033 *
> * Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK Fax: +44-(0)1223-366889 *
> * *
> ===============================================================
>
