 |
 |
I have no problem with this idea as an opt-in. However I loathe being forced to do things - for my own good or anyone else's. But unless I read the tenor of this discussion completely wrongly, opt-in is precisely what is not being proposed. Adrian Goldman Sent from my iPhone On 31 Oct 2011, at 18:02, Jacob Keller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear Crystallographers, > > I am sending this to try to start a thread which addresses only the > specific issue of whether to archive, at least as a start, images > corresponding to PDB-deposited structures. I believe there could be a > real consensus about the low cost and usefulness of this degree of > archiving, but the discussion keeps swinging around to all levels of > archiving, obfuscating who's for what and for what reason. What about > this level, alone? All of the accompanying info is already entered > into the PDB, so there would be no additional costs on that score. > There could just be a simple link, added to the "download files" > pulldown, which could say "go to image archive," or something along > those lines. Images would be pre-zipped, maybe even tarred, and people > could just download from there. What's so bad? > > The benefits are that sometimes there are structures in which > resolution cutoffs might be unreasonable, or perhaps there is some > potential radiation damage in the later frames that might be > deleterious to interpretations, or perhaps there are ugly features in > the images which are invisible or obscure in the statistics. > > In any case, it seems to me that this step would be pretty painless, > as it is merely an extension of the current system--just add a link to > the pulldown menu! > > Best Regards, > > Jacob Keller > > -- > ******************************************* > Jacob Pearson Keller > Northwestern University > Medical Scientist Training Program > email: [log in to unmask] > ******************************************* >