Dear Herman, I think that MPR is a very neat and tidy, excellent, proposal. Moreover it uses the word “measurements”, and we are an experimental based science. I support it. Great. Greetings, John
Emeritus Professor John R Helliwell DSc > On 30 Jun 2020, at 15:10, Schreuder, Herman /DE <herman.schreu...@sanofi.com> > wrote: > > > Dear BB, > > Since there does not seem a generally accepted term for the subject of this > discussions, and since even the IUCR scriptures do not give any guidance, I > would propose to introduce a completely new term: > > Measurements per reflection or MPR > > This term is politically neutral, should adequately describe this particular > statistic and is not associated with entrenched traditions at either side of > the Atlantic. > > What do you think? > Herman > > > Von: CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Im Auftrag von John R > Helliwell > Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020 14:34 > An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Betreff: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a full dataset? > > EXTERNAL : Real sender is owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk > > > > Dear Colleagues, > In an effort to break this naming deadlock, and with Massimo and Ian not > showing up as yet, I checked the IUCr Dictionary. > “Redundancy“ and “Multiplicity“ are not listed. > The more generic term “Statistical Descriptors“ is though and even offers > Recommendations:- > http://ww1.iucr.org/iucr-top/comm/cnom/statdes/recomm.html > Point 1, first sentence, fits the various wishes of this thread succinctly, > if not in a single word, and even not readily allowing an easy acronym. > Greetings, > John > > > Emeritus Professor John R Helliwell DSc > > > > > On 30 Jun 2020, at 13:11, Phil Jeffrey <pjeff...@princeton.edu> wrote: > > The people that already use multiplicity are going to find reasons why it's > the superior naming scheme - although the underlying reason has a lot to do > with negative associations with 'redundant', perhaps hightened in the current > environment. And conversely redundant works for many others - Graeme's > pragmatic defense of multiplicity actually works both ways - any person who > takes the trouble to read the stats table, now exiled to Supplementary Data, > knows what it means. Surely, then, the only way forward on this almost > totally irrelevant discussion is to come up with a universally-loathed > nomenclature that pleases nobody, preferably an acronym whose origins will be > lost to history and the dusty CCP4 archives (which contain threads similar to > this one). I humbly submit: > > NFDOF: Nearly Futile Data Overcollection Factor ? > [*] > > Or, even better, could we not move on to equally pointless discussions of the > inappropriateness of "R-factor" ? I have a long history of rearguard action > trying to give stupid acronyms a wider audience, so you're guaranteed to hear > from me on this for years. > > (Personally I'm pining for Gerard Kleywegt to resume his quest for > overextended naming rationales, of which ValLigURL is a personal > 'favo[u]rite'. But I'm just old-fashioned.) > > Ironically, > Phil Jeffrey > Princeton > > [* I too have collected 540 degrees in P1 to solve a SAD structure, just > because I could, hence "nearly"] > [** The actual answer to this thread is: history is written by the authors of > scaling programs - and I think the Americans are currently losing at this > game, thus perilously close to making themselves redundant.] > > On 6/30/20 4:14 AM, Winter, Graeme (DLSLtd,RAL,LSCI) wrote: > > Or, we could accept the fact that crystallographers are kinda used to > multiplicity of an individual Miller index being different to multiplicity of > observations, and in Table 1 know which one you mean? 😉 Given that they add > new information (at the very least to the scaling model) they are strictly > not “redundant”. > The amount that anyone outside of methods development cares about the > “epsilon” multiplicity of reflections is … negligible? > Sorry for chucking pragmatism into a dogmatic debate 😀 > Cheerio Graeme > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 > > This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing > list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ > > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
