Perhaps we could use Poincare's argument(?), that knowing one cross section
of the universe in all of its detail would allow forward and
back-calculation of all previous states. Then the universe would be its own
lab notebook/ archive, and we would not need to bother with all of these
technicalities in the first place. The images, then, could be
back-calculated from the current (or any) configuration of all the
universe's atoms, and then we could work better on improving our
crystallography software (and ferreting out fraud) from those...

JPK

*******************************************
Jacob Pearson Keller
Northwestern University
Medical Scientist Training Program
Dallos Laboratory
F. Searle 1-240
2240 Campus Drive
Evanston IL 60208
lab: 847.491.2438
cel: 773.608.9185
email: [log in to unmask]
*******************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank von Delft" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] images


> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>