From: Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.)
Date: 6 April 2012 03:58
Ojweh....
> c) Discarding your primary data is generally considered bad form...
Agreed, but it is a big burden on labs to maintain archives of their raw
data indefinitely.
Even IRS allows to discard them after some time.
But you DO have to file in the first place, right? How long to keep is an
entirely different question.
> What is wrong with partially integrated data in terms of structure
validation?
Who thinks something is wrong with that idea? Section 3.1 under figure 3 of
said incendiary pamphlet
states: '...yadayada....when unmerged data or images for proper
reprocessing are not available
owing to the unfortunate absence of a formal obligation to deposit unmerged
intensity data or diffraction images.'
> They did not generate the bad data.
This is a genuine American thinking!
Ok, the US citizens on BB might take this one up on my behalf, gospodin ;-)
видеть вас на Лубянке.
>But they might create conditions that would prevent their deposition.
Sure. We are back to the 2007 Reid shoe bomber argument. If you make PDB
deposition
a total pain for everybody, you don't get compliance, you get defiance. Ever
seen
any happy faces in a TSA check line?
Anyhow, image deposition will come.
Over and out, BR
----------
From: aaleshin
Alright, if the image deposition is the only way out, then I am for it, but please make sure that synchrotrons will do it for me...
----------
From: Bosch, Juergen
How should they ?
They have no clue which of the 20 datasets was actually useful to solve your structure.
If you ask James Holton he has (suggested) to go back to the archived data after a certain time and try to solve the undeposited structures then :-)
[Where is James anyhow ? Haven't seen a post recently from him]
Seriously, I think it is in our own interest to submit the corresponding images which led to a structure solution somewhere. And as others mentioned bad data or good data can always serve for educational purposes.
Just as an example
http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/xdswiki/index.php/1Y13
Jürgen
...............
----------
From: aaleshin
Did you play as a child a game called "a broken phone"? It is when someone tells something quickly to a neighbor, and so on until the words come back to the author. Very funny game.
My original thesis was that downloading/depositing the raw images would be a pain in the neck for crystallographers, so why would not to begin with the partially processed data, like .x files from HKL2000? People should be trained to hardships gradually...
Date: 6 April 2012 03:58
Ojweh....
> c) Discarding your primary data is generally considered bad form...
Agreed, but it is a big burden on labs to maintain archives of their raw
data indefinitely.
Even IRS allows to discard them after some time.
But you DO have to file in the first place, right? How long to keep is an
entirely different question.
> What is wrong with partially integrated data in terms of structure
validation?
Who thinks something is wrong with that idea? Section 3.1 under figure 3 of
said incendiary pamphlet
states: '...yadayada....when unmerged data or images for proper
reprocessing are not available
owing to the unfortunate absence of a formal obligation to deposit unmerged
intensity data or diffraction images.'
> They did not generate the bad data.
This is a genuine American thinking!
Ok, the US citizens on BB might take this one up on my behalf, gospodin ;-)
видеть вас на Лубянке.
>But they might create conditions that would prevent their deposition.
Sure. We are back to the 2007 Reid shoe bomber argument. If you make PDB
deposition
a total pain for everybody, you don't get compliance, you get defiance. Ever
seen
any happy faces in a TSA check line?
Anyhow, image deposition will come.
Over and out, BR
----------
From: aaleshin
Alright, if the image deposition is the only way out, then I am for it, but please make sure that synchrotrons will do it for me...
----------
From: Bosch, Juergen
How should they ?
They have no clue which of the 20 datasets was actually useful to solve your structure.
If you ask James Holton he has (suggested) to go back to the archived data after a certain time and try to solve the undeposited structures then :-)
[Where is James anyhow ? Haven't seen a post recently from him]
Seriously, I think it is in our own interest to submit the corresponding images which led to a structure solution somewhere. And as others mentioned bad data or good data can always serve for educational purposes.
Just as an example
http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/xdswiki/index.php/1Y13
Jürgen
----------
From: aaleshin
Did you play as a child a game called "a broken phone"? It is when someone tells something quickly to a neighbor, and so on until the words come back to the author. Very funny game.
My original thesis was that downloading/depositing the raw images would be a pain in the neck for crystallographers, so why would not to begin with the partially processed data, like .x files from HKL2000? People should be trained to hardships gradually...
No comments:
Post a Comment