[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Improving the enumeration_range definition.
- To: James Hester <james.r.hester@gmail.com>, Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Improving the enumeration_range definition.
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yayahjb@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 06:11:04 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <CAM+dB2e3NzmyMtM7AQxkV7aPA8fKuo9nh6qmyoW3fskSmUdsKw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2e3NzmyMtM7AQxkV7aPA8fKuo9nh6qmyoW3fskSmUdsKw@mail.gmail.com>
Why 3 SU and not 6SU or 1 SU? I don't mind specifying the probability distributions (in crystallography both Gaussian and Poisson statistics are important) and confidence intervals intended, but this needs more detail if it is to make statistical sense. In the case of counting statistics we definitely should not mix the limits on the mean being specified with the sigma and in the case of crystallographic atomic coordinates the experiment tells us the means and the sigmas from which we could compute confidence intervals, but distorting any specified enumeration limits by some number of sigma could lead to double application.
I would leave them separate.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:11 AM James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________Dear DDLm groupA suggestion has been put forward (see https://github.com/COMCIFS/cif_core/issues/116) to clarify the meaning of enumeration ranges in the presence of SU. So instead of a hard boundary, a value may lie with +- 3su of the upper/lower boundary where it has been specified. The suggestion is to expand the _enumeration_range text as follows:(Old text)The inclusive range of values "from:to" allowed for the defined item.(New text)The inclusive range of values "from:to" allowed for the defined item. If items have associated SU, the value must lie in the 99.97% Gaussian confidence interval(lower_limit -3u) =< x =< (upper_limit + 3u).--T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
_______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Improving the enumeration_range definition. (James Hester)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Improving the enumeration_range definition. (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Improving the enumeration_range definition.
- Next by Date: [ddlm-group] Removing separate "Count" and "Index" types from_type.contents in DDLm
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Improving the enumeration_range definition.
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Improving the enumeration_range definition.
- Index(es):