[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: New version of CIF Core dictionary (2.4)
- To: "Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: New version of CIF Core dictionary (2.4)
- From: David Brown <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:01:06 -0500
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thank you for returning your approval of the proposed changes to the core CIF along with some suggestions for minor changes. At least I assume your email indicated your formal approval of the changes apart from those noted below, most of which are easily fixed.
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
This is a good point which we can accommodate.============================================================================== data_distributed_density_symmetry_multiplicity _enumeration_range 1:192 ============================================================================== The upper limit is rather arbitrary. It is true that the maximum multiplicity in the Int. Tab. is 192, but when working with group-subgroup relations (e.g. to analyze twinning) there could be unusual situations which require settings with larger multiplicities. I propose that the upper limit is removed.
This is a trickier point and your proposed correction is more than editorial. It will require referral back to the Dictionary Maintenance Group.============================================================================== data_distributed_density_symmetry_multiplicity _definition If the ring is at some arbitrary angle to the mirror plane, the mirror generates a second ring and both rings should be described independently. ============================================================================== This seems inconsistent with the general approach of only providing non-redundant atomic data (asymmetric unit). In my working experience, having to deal with explicit redundancy is usually cumbersome and prone to introduce ambiguities and errors. I'd very much prefer if the core dictionary mandated a non-redundant representation.
This is an oversight and will be changed. The regular definition of U is intended. Beta is certainly not an option.============================================================================== data_distributed_density_Uiso _definition ; The factor exp(-Ux^-2^) is applied to all parts of the ============================================================================== ^^^^ 2 pi ^2^ ? The formula for the Debye-Waller factor (atomic Uiso) is exp(-2 pi^2^ U d^-2^) I find it misleading that the 2 pi^2^ is folded into _distributed_density_Uiso. For consistency, I'd change the definition to: exp(-2 pi^2^ Ux^-2^) Another commonly used notation for the isotropic displacement parameter is "beta" (greek letter), with this definition: exp(-beta d^-2^) This suggests the name _distributed_density_beta_iso. However, I'd prefer to keep _distributed_density_Uiso, but with a definition compatible with the atomic Uiso.
Thanks for pointing these out.============================================================================== 6. _exptl_absorption_correction_T_max, *_T_min ^^^^ wrong name exptl_transmission_factor_max and *_min ============================================================================== ^ missing underscore
Since you have indicated a serious reservation about the way in which symmetry is handled in the new distributed density category, we will withdraw this section and send it back for further discussion.
begin:vcard fn:I.David Brown n:Brown;I.David org:McMaster University;Brockhouse Institute for Materials Research adr:;;King St. W;Hamilton;Ontario;L8S 4M1;Canada email;internet:email@example.com title:Professor Emeritus tel;work:+905 525 9140 x 24710 tel;fax:+905 521 2773 version:2.1 end:vcard
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Re: New version of CIF Core dictionary (2.4) (Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve)