This note is in response to the message: It has been suggested that the data tag '_atom_site.label_alt_id' could be used to solve the problem described above without additional data tags being created. Is there a specific problem or objection with implementing the '_atom_site.label_alt_id' suggestion? One objection has involved calculating atom site occupancies. However, the '_atom_site.occupancy' tag is not mandatory and does not need to be included for NMR structures. Eldon Ulrich --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The most important thing would be to make a decision of some kind. Since there are some technical problems with using _atom_site.label_alt_id without a redefinition of the token and some clarifying language on what is happening with _atom_site.occupancy in the case of NMR entries, and one can get into rather complex questions on the handling of disorder, vs microheterogeneity vs. multiple models, temporarily creating a token to simply carry the existing information in mmCIF versions of existing PDB entries, without redefining anything now in the dictionary would seem a conservative holding action while waiting for a full technical resolution of the proper handling of NMR entries. Please note that a implementation of this approach does not even require an official change in the mmCIF dicitionary, since the extra token could be treated as a user-defined token listed in the PUBL_MANUSCRIPT_INCL category, but a generally agreed approach would be better for all concerned. Certainly, if the work has already been done on augmenting the definition of _atom_site.label_alt_id with examples of how NMR entries are to be handled, I, for one, would be happy to switch over to using that, but I don't recall seeing that in the latest dictionary nor in the discussions on the subject. My apologies if I missed it. -- H. J. Bernstein