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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gerard
> Bricogne
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:03 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 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:[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
>
|