[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: _item_related.function_code
- Subject: Re: _item_related.function_code
- From: Richard Gildea <rgildea@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:47:44 +0100
- In-Reply-To: <4C166553.3060004@rcsb.rutgers.edu>
- References: <AANLkTimGcuFIw1s8V-PPW5hrjOvxGPvPIIrxnOHnrEKp@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54165DF33819@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><4C166553.3060004@rcsb.rutgers.edu>
There seems to be a further inconsistency with these definitions. Both the *_adp and *_occupancy list (only) *_posn as an alternate related item, and also the *_posn definition lists itself as a related item. I suspect that the intention here was to rather list _atom_site.refinement_flags as the related item (as is the case in core_cif.dic). In addition, it would seem more logical to make the related function here 'replaces' rather than 'alternate', since it seems that it is the intention of the DDL2 specification (as I understand it) that 'replacedby' and 'replaces' are to be opposites of each other.
Thanks,
Richard
On 14 June 2010 18:22, John Westbrook <jwest@rcsb.rutgers.edu> wrote:
Hi John,
We will correct the inconsistent use of 'replaces' when the dictionary is next updated.
Thanks for pointing out the problem.
John
_______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list cif-developers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- _item_related.function_code (Richard Gildea)
- RE: _item_related.function_code (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: _item_related.function_code (John Westbrook)
- Prev by Date: Re: _item_related.function_code
- Next by Date: Re: _item_related.function_code
- Prev by thread: Re: _item_related.function_code
- Next by thread: Re: _item_related.function_code
- Index(es):