To avoid misunderstandings, since I received a couple of emails already:
Is it important to make such a resource available to developers?
Absolutely?
? was a typo. I meant Absolutely!
I think such data are essential for development of better processing
software, and I find the development of better
processing software of paramount importance!
we can of course now have a referendum to decide in the best curse
of action! :-(
Curse was not a typo.
I am Greek. Today, thinking of referendums, I see many curses of
action, and limited courses of action.
A.
A.
PS Rob, you are of course right about sequencing costs, but I was
only trying to paint the bigger picture...
On Oct 31, 2011, at 18:00, Frank von Delft wrote:
"Loathe being forced to do things"? You mean, like being forced to
use
programs developed by others at no cost to yourself?
I'm in a bit of a time-warp here - how exactly do users think our
current suite of software got to be as astonishingly good as it
is? 10
years ago people (non-developers) were saying exactly the same
things -
yet almost every talk on phasing and auto-building that I've heard
ends
up acknowledging the JCSG datasets.
Must have been a waste of time then, I suppose.
phx.
On 31/10/2011 16:29, Adrian Goldman wrote:
I have no problem with this idea as an opt-in. However I loathe
being forced to do things - for my own good or anyone else's. But
unless I read the tenor of this discussion completely wrongly, opt-
in is precisely what is not being proposed.
Adrian Goldman
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Oct 2011, at 18:02, Jacob Keller<j-kell...@fsm.northwestern.edu
> wrote:
Dear Crystallographers,
I am sending this to try to start a thread which addresses only the
specific issue of whether to archive, at least as a start, images
corresponding to PDB-deposited structures. I believe there could
be a
real consensus about the low cost and usefulness of this degree of
archiving, but the discussion keeps swinging around to all levels
of
archiving, obfuscating who's for what and for what reason. What
about
this level, alone? All of the accompanying info is already entered
into the PDB, so there would be no additional costs on that score.
There could just be a simple link, added to the "download files"
pulldown, which could say "go to image archive," or something along
those lines. Images would be pre-zipped, maybe even tarred, and
people
could just download from there. What's so bad?
The benefits are that sometimes there are structures in which
resolution cutoffs might be unreasonable, or perhaps there is some
potential radiation damage in the later frames that might be
deleterious to interpretations, or perhaps there are ugly
features in
the images which are invisible or obscure in the statistics.
In any case, it seems to me that this step would be pretty
painless,
as it is merely an extension of the current system--just add a
link to
the pulldown menu!
Best Regards,
Jacob Keller
--
*******************************************
Jacob Pearson Keller
Northwestern University
Medical Scientist Training Program
email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu
*******************************************
P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
Anastassis (Tassos) Perrakis, Principal Investigator / Staff Member
Department of Biochemistry (B8)
Netherlands Cancer Institute,
Dept. B8, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 512 1951 Fax: +31 20 512 1954 Mobile / SMS: +31 6 28
597791
P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
Anastassis (Tassos) Perrakis, Principal Investigator / Staff Member
Department of Biochemistry (B8)
Netherlands Cancer Institute,
Dept. B8, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 512 1951 Fax: +31 20 512 1954 Mobile / SMS: +31 6 28 597791
