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

[Imgcif-l] Unique array id

• To: imgcif-l@iucr.org
• Subject: [Imgcif-l] Unique array id
• From: Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov>
• Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:38:31 -0500

I find it strange that the 'array_id' is not a complete array reference.
For example, in the new MAP category, a MAP array reference requires
both the array_id and the binary_id:

  _map_segment.array_id
  _map_segment.binary_id

It is also confusing that array_id is really an _array_structure.id. Is
a given _array_structure.id supposed to be unique for a given array? If
so, why doesn't it include a binary_id reference?

If _array_structure.id is not intended to be unique, so that multiple
binary arrays with the same format can reference the same
_array_structure.id, then doesn't it make sense for 'array_id' to be a
reference to a name given to the _array_data category?

If neither of the two are meant to be unique, why not define a simple
_array category:

   _array.id
   _array.array_structure_id
   _array.binary_id

This would make the most sens if the 'array_id' used everywhere points
to the above _array.id name.

Is there a reason not to have a name for each unique array? Is it a good
idea, but we are now stuck with a rather messed up organization for
historical purposes?

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

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Imgcif-l] Unique array id (Herbert J. Bernstein)

• Prev by Date: [Imgcif-l] Hawaii imgcif workshop reimbursements
• Next by Date: Re: [Imgcif-l] Unique array id
• Prev by thread: Re: [Imgcif-l] Electron density map parameters
• Next by thread: Re: [Imgcif-l] Unique array id
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread