Dear Dale, dear Kay, last year, we discussed this kind of problems (Urzhumtseva et al., 2013, Acta Cryst., D69, 1921-1934). Our approach does not tell you where to cut your data and which reflections to accept / reject but as soon as you have your set of reflections, you calculate very formally and very strictly the "effective resolution" of ANY diffraction data set, with ANY completeness, with ANY composition of measured / missed reflections. For a complete data set, d_effective coincides with the d_high value but is different for incomplete data sets. The article contains a number of examples.
With this approach, the discussion of the completeness of the highest-resolution shell becomes irrelevant; one can simply cite the "effective resolution". I hope this can help. With best regards, Sacha Urzhumtsev ________________________________________ De : CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] de la part de Dale Tronrud [de...@daletronrud.com] Envoyé : samedi 19 avril 2014 03:20 À : CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Objet : Re: [ccp4bb] crystallographic confusion -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I see no problem with saying that the model was refined against every spot on the detector that the data reduction program said was observed (and I realize there is argument about this) but declare that the "resolution of the model" is a number based on the traditional criteria. Dale Tronrud
