One convincing argument I have:
We will be able to catch fraud ultimately. Fraud is a devastation for
structural biology.
...Unless they will be smart enough to forge diffraction data images,
not a big deal.
The second one - in the case of a controversy of the deposited results
(possible thing) we can try to re-interpret the space group and
Bravais lattice
And one more, when we have time we can show that we know better to
process and to refine ;-)
Dr Felix Frolow
Professor of Structural Biology and Biotechnology
Department of Molecular Microbiology
and Biotechnology
Tel Aviv University 69978, Israel
Acta Crystallographica D, co-editor
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel: ++972 3640 8723
Fax: ++972 3640 9407
Cellular: ++972 547 459 608
On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Garib Murshudov wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Before going into and trying to find a technical solution to the
> problem it would be good if decide if we need images. As far as I
> know if we face with a problem to solve and we know that it is
> necessary to solve then we find technical solution to the problem
> (either from other fields or we find our own solution with some
> elements of reinvention of new MX wheels).
>
> Do we need images to store? What kind of information we can extract
> from images that we cannot from amplitudes, intensities (even
> unmerged)? Does anybody have a convincing argument for favour of
> images?
>
>
> regards
> Garib
>
>
>
> On 18 Mar 2009, at 16:32, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>
>> Actually the radiologists who manage CT and PET scans of brains do
>> have
>> a solution, called DICOM, see http://medical.nema.org/. If we work
>> together as a community we should be able to do as well as the
>> rocket scientists and the brain surgeons' radiologists, perhaps even
>> better. -- Herbert
>>
>> =====================================================
>> Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
>> Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
>> Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
>>
>> +1-631-244-3035
>> [log in to unmask]
>> =====================================================
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently it DOES take a rocket scientist to solve this problem.
>>> Maybe the brain surgeons also have a solution?
>>>
>>> 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: "Klaas Decanniere" <[log in to unmask]
>>> >
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:36 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] images
>>>
>>>
>>>> Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>>>> Other sciences have struggled with this and seem to have found an
>>>> answer.
>>>> Have e.g. a look at http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/fits.html
>>>> kind regards,
>>>> Klaas
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a good time to start a major crystallogrpahic image
>>>>> archiving effort. Money may well be available now that will not
>>>>> be
>>>>> avialable six month from now, and we have good, if not perfect,
>>>>> solutions available for many, if not all, of the technical issues
>>>>> involved. Is it really wise to let this opportunity pass us by?
>>>>>>> The deposition of images would be possible providing some
>>>>>>> consistent
>>>>>>> imagecif format was agreed.
>>>>>>> This would of course be of great use to developers for certain
>>>>>>> pathological cases, but not I suspect much value to the user
>>>>>>> community - I down load structure factors all the time for test
>>>>>>> purposes but I probably would not bother to go through the data
>>>>>>> processing, and unless there were extensive notes associated
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> each set of images I suspect it would be hard to reproduce
>>>>>>> sensible
>>>>>>> results.
>>>
>>
|