On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 12:24 -0400, Brian Toby wrote:
 [...]
> The more formality that CIF places on relationships between related 
> data items, the greater chance that someone will come up with a 
> crystallographically useful situation that breaks that relationship. To 
> treat the new paradigm, CIF will have to catch up (fast!) and define an 
> entirely new dictionary populated with previously-defined data items, 
> but having different relationships defined or define a entirely new set 
> of data items with definitions identical with existing items. In the 
> short term, data will be lost from the publication stream, because the 
> standard cannot accommodate it. Further, when there are too many ways 
> for the same information to be included in a CIF, the value of having a 
> standardized format diminishes because it becomes increasing difficult 
> for software to use that information.
> 
> IMHO, go gently with formalizing data relationships.

I agree.  Fixing _atom_site_aniso_label would actually allow more
flexibility in data presentation (and catch up with general usage) in
this one case.   
_______________________________________________
cif-developers mailing list
cif-developers@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers

Reply to: [list | sender only]