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

Re: [Imgcif-l] Better organization for a named array reference?

• To: The Crystallographic Binary File and its imgCIF application to image data <imgcif-l@iucr.org>
• Subject: Re: [Imgcif-l] Better organization for a named array reference?
• From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
• Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:28:17 -0400
• In-Reply-To: <45FEB7C3.8050000@niehs.nih.gov>
• References: <45FEB7C3.8050000@niehs.nih.gov>

For data collection, this would not seem to be a very useful approach,
since a data collection file is most likely to have just one image
of a series of frames with the same structure.

When we move up to more general collections of binary data, there
may be value in allowing an extra layer of identifiers to help
organize things differently, but in view of the current investment
if software to collect data, whatever is added would have to be
optional.  I look forward to seeing details of an approach
that can co-exist with the current scheme, and which would not
cause disruption to mosflm or adxv in processing synchrotron
data.


At 12:18 PM -0400 3/19/07, Joe Krahn wrote:
>In looking over a proposed 3D 'map' format, I found that a data
>reference required two references to name a block of data, an array_id
>(which really should be called structure_id) and a binary_id. This is
>due to the way array_data and array_structure categories are defined. It
>seems that this is probably a 'legacy' issue from the original simple
>binary block format, before binary strings. It may also be that the
>original design was oriented to single-image data blocks. In any case,
>the current organization seems rather convoluted in terms of how to
>select an array object.
>
>(I commented on this to Herbert previously, so some people may have
>already considered this.)
>
>I propose a simple addition to allow for a single reference to select a
>binary array by name. To allow for this, a single new category could be
>added, perhaps called just 'array_name'. This category would list all
>valid structure+binary pairs, and give each a name. Then references to
>array_id+binary_id could be replaced by just array_name. Ideally,
>'array_id' should be replaced with 'structure_id' everywhere to be more
>accurate.
>
>Alternatively, if people want to keep structure.id as the primary
>array-name reference, then the structure_id category should include a
>binary_id reference for each array_structure member.
>
>I am assuming that the binary-string form is still new enough that some
>organizational changes are not so bad. A few changes now while it's
>still new is better than being stuck with some 'legacy' issues for years
>to come.
>
>Joe Krahn
>_______________________________________________
>imgcif-l mailing list
>imgcif-l@iucr.org
>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/imgcif-l

_______________________________________________
imgcif-l mailing list
imgcif-l@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/imgcif-l

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• References:
  • [Imgcif-l] Better organization for a named array reference? (Joe Krahn)

• Prev by Date: [Imgcif-l] Better organization for a named array reference?
• Next by Date: [Imgcif-l] ImgCIF Densiry Maps
• Prev by thread: [Imgcif-l] Better organization for a named array reference?
• Next by thread: [Imgcif-l] imgCIF workshop at BNL on 24 May 2007
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread