Sorry to contradict,
But the mmCIF data model certainly does not seem to require hkl unique
within the reflection data.
Like CIF the mmCIF formalism has been developed to allow a complete
description of a diffraction experiment and the data arising from it.
There is a full description at
http://mmcif.pdb.org/dictionaries/mmcif_pdbx_v40.dic/Categories/diffrn_refln.html
(I am grateful to Rachel Kramer Green at the RCSB for pointing out these
links to the dictionary and the papers describing its development).
Having chosen mmCIF for the archive and then not using its flexibility
seems a bit like having your cake and NOT eating it.
It is strange to hear on a discussion board that recently considered the
advantages of depositing complete image data, that a case will have to
be made for allowing the deposition of full unmerged datasets.
++Martyn
On 16/09/2013 14:03, Gerard DVD Kleywegt wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> At present, unmerged data cannot be handled properly as part of a PDB
> deposition. One reason for this is that changes to the mmCIF/PDBx data
> model will be required (at the moment, hkl must be unique within the
> reflection data, which is logical for merged data but precludes
> handling of unmerged data). There are other (easier to resolve) issues
> to work out, e.g. having to do with file naming and distribution via
> the wwPDB ftp archive.
>
> The wwPDB partners are presently focusing all efforts on rolling out
> the new joint deposition and annotation system. Once this system is
> reasonably stable we will look into accepting/validating/distributing
> new kinds of data. This concerns not only unmerged Is for X-ray but
> also unassigned NOE peak lists for NMR. We will seek the advice of the
> corresponding wwPDB VTFs (Validation Task Forces) to help define the
> data items that need to be captured, how the data should be processed
> by wwPDB, and what kind(s) of validation is/are required.
>
> --Gerard
>
> ---
> Gerard J. Kleywegt, PDBe, EMBL-EBI, Hinxton, UK
> [log in to unmask] ..................... pdbe.org
> Secretary: Pauline Haslam [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Raji Edayathumangalam wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Sorry for the non-ccp4 post.
>>
>> I am trying to determine what is the best form of unmerged reflection
>> data
>> to deposit to the PDB. I have single wavelength anomalous data for my
>> structure and I have two flavors of scaled files from the same exact
>> set of
>> diffraction images: (1) data indexed and scaled in p1, and (2) data
>> indexed
>> in p222, scaled in Scalepack using the "no merge original index"
>> option and
>> converted to .mtz since the unit cell in the header of the output
>> .sca file
>> was missing.
>>
>> The space group for the dataset is p212121.
>>
>> Please could you let me know what might be the best approach.
>>
>> Many thanks and cheers,
>> Raji
>>
>> --
>> Raji Edayathumangalam
>> Instructor in Neurology, Harvard Medical School
>> Research Associate, Brigham and Women's Hospital
>> Visiting Research Scholar, Brandeis University
>>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --Gerard
>
> ******************************************************************
> Gerard J. Kleywegt
>
> http://xray.bmc.uu.se/gerard mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ******************************************************************
> The opinions in this message are fictional. Any similarity
> to actual opinions, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
> ******************************************************************
> Little known gastromathematical curiosity: let "z" be the
> radius and "a" the thickness of a pizza. Then the volume
> of that pizza is equal to pi*z*z*a !
> ******************************************************************
|