Maybe, but images without experimental context (sequence? ligands?
purification? crystallization format? -- PURPOSE OF EXPERIMENT!?!!
relationship to the other 15 similar datasets) are as good as no
images. And as far as I know, there's no good discussion on the table
for that. At least, no-one on the thread mentioned it, so they're
probably not thinking about it either.
I suppose efforts like PIMS or are a start, and maybe they can even have
enough information (my feeling is they currently don't). But that's
where the discussion should start: how to index (in sense of annotate)
the datasets. The technicalities are just that: technicalities.
Or even closer to home: does ANY detector/beamline write even timestamps
into the image header...? Never mind ring current, intensity of the
beam, size of beam, size of crystal, length of direct beam path, etc
etc...
phx
Gerard Bricogne wrote:
> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kay
>> Diederichs
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:02 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] images
>>
>
>
|