Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ambiguity in atom_site.disorder_group value -1

John: Thank you for such a detailed and informative analysis. Icertainly feel that I have a better understanding of this topic now.
Bob: So I think the current iteration of Jmol handles the situationwell. It properly renders the ensemble of disordered configurations,and allows an author to select any subset that he/she wishes to display.(But would it be possible for the context menu to allow simultaneousselection of more than one configuration? It's doable through Jmol'sexcellent scripting language, but I found it a bit laborious to createmy various example representations.)
By analogy with the way CIF allows for particular geometry featuresto be displayed in publications (_geom_bond_publ_flag etc.), I thinkthere could be a data item ..._display_flag (with values "y", "n")that indicates which of the available configurations have been selectedfor display.
 > Thanks for the discussion. Thanks for suggesting this list, Brian.
The credit for that goes to James:)
But it would be interesting to hear from other list members aboutwhether they would value the ability to record and exchange thisinformation amongst other visualization programs (Mercury? Olex2?).I think we have demonstrated the potential usefulness of this,but, to echo John's concern over "could"/"should", will the likelytake-up justify the effort?
There's also a cif-developers list (cif-developers@iucr.org,http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers)which could be polled for expressions of interest, though themembership has a large overlap with this one. As James mentionselsewhere, the current discussion is archived athttps://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/lists/coredmg/msg00441.htmlso can just be pointed to when discussing elsewhere.

On 31/10/2022 22:19, Robert Hanson via coreDMG wrote:> Understood. I will still claim it as a feature request, perhaps not > fully thought out on my part (as for example, adding the translations to > the symmetry operations, as for bonding. It arose because as far as I > know there is no way to describe this for symmetry-equivalent disorder > groups the way John points out is readily available for "standard" > non-symmetry-related disorder. Just seems to me to be an omission.> > I won't belabor this. If there is an official way to suggest a > feature/consideration for the next update of CIF, please let me know.> > Thanks for the discussion. Thanks for suggesting this list, Brian.> > Bob
_______________________________________________coreDMG mailing listcoreDMG@iucr.orghttp://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coredmg

[Send comment to list secretary]
[Reply to list (subscribers only)]