I find it strange that the 'array_id' is not a complete array reference. For example, in the new MAP category, a MAP array reference requires both the array_id and the binary_id: _map_segment.array_id _map_segment.binary_id It is also confusing that array_id is really an _array_structure.id. Is a given _array_structure.id supposed to be unique for a given array? If so, why doesn't it include a binary_id reference? If _array_structure.id is not intended to be unique, so that multiple binary arrays with the same format can reference the same _array_structure.id, then doesn't it make sense for 'array_id' to be a reference to a name given to the _array_data category? If neither of the two are meant to be unique, why not define a simple _array category: _array.id _array.array_structure_id _array.binary_id This would make the most sens if the 'array_id' used everywhere points to the above _array.id name. Is there a reason not to have a name for each unique array? Is it a good idea, but we are now stuck with a rather messed up organization for historical purposes? Joe Krahn _______________________________________________ imgcif-l mailing list imgcif-l@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/imgcif-l
Copyright © International Union of Crystallography
IUCr Webmaster