Discussion List Archives

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

Re: The quest for tentative approval.

> * Has anyone involved with CBF also had a look at NeXus?

We looked at, considered and discussed HDF-based formats such as NeXus at
the BNL CBF workshop.  There certainly is a lot to recommend HDF, but the
concensus of the meeting was that we needed something both simpler and
better as a community standard for the interchange of synchrotron data.
The result of those discussions was essentially the CBF/imgCIF format we
then implemented.  Certainly, if someone feels that the discussion needs
to be re-opened, because for salient technical or pragmatic issue was
missed, they should reopen it, but the answer to this question is:  yes,
many people connected with CBF looked at HDF-based formats.  If 
neXus-CBF and CBF-neXus filter programs should be needed at some time, I
will be happy to write them.

> * How likely is it that synchrotron beamline stations are going to write
>   images as CBF?

That depends on when data collection packages provide the cability of
writing images as CBF and the wishes of the experimenters involved.

> * What about detector manufacturers?
> 

That is certainly up to them, but I would suspect if the community showed
a serious interest in any particular format and there were no great
technical problems they would oblige us.

> * Is there a real impetus for implementing CBF?
> 

In the abstract -- improving the ability to interchange synchrotron data,
better integration with CIF and mmCIF data.  In the real-world political
sense -- that depends on what happens next with data collection software
packages.

> * The IUCr warnings in the code I've downloaded include this bit:
> 
>  * _________________________________________________________________  *
>  *                                                                    *
>  *  * 1 CIFs and STAR Files may be generated, stored or transmitted,  *
>  *    without permission or charge, provided their purpose is not     *
>  *    specifically for profit or commercial gain, and provided that   *
>                        *************************
>  
> 
>  so what would be the position if a dataset were to be collected for
>  someone for money? Would the "collector" need to get written permission
>  from IUCr for this? Might this not impede adoption of this as a standard?

Brian has answered this very clearly for the IUCr.  As one of the authors
of the code, I also assure you of our benign intentions.  I, for one, have
no intention of poking into what use people make of particular datasets
written with the API.  Speaking for myself, not for any institution, all
those notices are intended to help protect the community from the
confusion and misunderstandings which might result from non-standard
non-conforming CIFs or from some ambitious entrepreneur trying to capture
the "CIF market" by claiming to own the standard and renting it back to
all of us. (Don't laugh -- stranger things have happened).   We are trying
to work out less confusing wording which will achieve the desired result.

Regards,
  Herbert J. Bernstein

=====================================================
****                BERNSTEIN + SONS
*   *       INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS
****     P.O. BOX 177, BELLPORT, NY 11713-0177
*   * ***
**** *            Herbert J. Bernstein
  *   ***     yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com
 ***     *
  *   *** 1-631-286-1339    FAX: 1-631-286-1999
=====================================================

On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Harry Powell wrote:

> Hi folks
> 
> Just to fill in - I'm working with Andrew Leslie on MOSFLM - paid for by
> CCP4. CCP4 (and the PX people at Daresbury) are keen to have a unified
> image format for all the reasons that you have got involved with defining
> imgCIF/CBF (henceforth referred to as "CBF"), and as such are keen for me
> to be actively involved.
> 
> I've had a quick look through the mailing list, and I'd guess from that
> that all it needs is people to start using the code (and have images
> written in the correct form...), maybe in beta- test versions of current
> software. I understand that Jim Pflugrath is in a position to implement it
> pretty quickly. 
> 
> Something that came out of a meeting we had at the end of February was
> that a standardized format for storing data exists as NeXus (see
> http://lns00.psi.ch/NeXus) and is used by people working with neutrons,
> though it is also intended for X-ray users. However, it doesn't seem to
> have a recognized area detector image format. It seems to me (but IMWBW) 
> that there is a larger group of people working on NeXus than CBF and that
> it is already being used as a de facto standard (I honestly don't know
> much about it other than what I've read on their bulletin board). 
> 
> So, I'd like to get your comments on imgCIF/CBF vs NeXus (apart from all
> the hard work that has gone into developing the standards and code!!).
> 
> In particular;
> 
> * Has anyone involved with CBF also had a look at NeXus?
> 
> * How likely is it that synchrotron beamline stations are going to write
>   images as CBF?
> 
> * What about detector manufacturers?
> 
> * Is there a real impetus for implementing CBF?
> 
> * The IUCr warnings in the code I've downloaded include this bit:
> 
>  * _________________________________________________________________  *
>  *                                                                    *
>  *  * 1 CIFs and STAR Files may be generated, stored or transmitted,  *
>  *    without permission or charge, provided their purpose is not     *
>  *    specifically for profit or commercial gain, and provided that   *
>                        *************************
>  
> 
>  so what would be the position if a dataset were to be collected for
>  someone for money? Would the "collector" need to get written permission
>  from IUCr for this? Might this not impede adoption of this as a standard?
> 
> I'd welcome comments! 
> 
> Harry 
> -- 
> Dr Harry Powell, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, MRC Centre, Hills
> Road, Cambridge, CB2 2QH
> 
> 
>

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Science Council (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ISC Committee on Data. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

International Science Council Scientific Freedom Policy

The IUCr observes the basic policy of non-discrimination and affirms the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science.

Useful links