[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Powder CIF Proposals

• Subject: Re: Powder CIF Proposals
• From: "ROBIN SHIRLEY (USER)" <R.Shirley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:29:43 +0100 (BST)

Further to my posting of Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:48:08 GMT:

> But in response to people's feedback this became elaborated into a 
> sequence of three separate items (which could be looped if 
> necessary):
>
>   M (the numerical value)
>
>   FOM (the generic type, left as quoted text)
>
>   "program", or as I now prefer, "source" (another piece of quoted  
>   text, which for example summarises the program version or other  
>   source of the specific algorithm used)
>
> e.g.
> 
> _pd_index_merit_M          21.7
> _pd_index_merit_FOM        'M20'
> _pd_index_merit_source     'ITO12'

Re-reading this, I realise that the terms _M and _FOM are not very
transparent.  It might be preferable to substitute_value and _type.

Thus the example would become:

 _pd_index_merit_value      21.7
 _pd_index_merit_type       'M20'
 _pd_index_merit_source     'ITO12'

which is, I think, rather clearer.

Robin Shirley

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Prev by Date: Re: Powder CIF Proposals
• Next by Date: Parsing of comments in BNC definition
• Prev by thread: Re: Powder CIF Proposals
• Next by thread: Brian T's queries
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread