I like to think structural biologists are more than just another user
group, they FEED the PDB!
Their needs should first and foremost be taken care off, I would think.
Also, it would indeed be a great loss if legacy programs can not be used
anymore.
- Jeroen -
Clemens Vonrhein wrote:
Th
Hmmm - ccp4bb doesn't allow an attachement ... so script comes here:
-- cut here ---
#!/bin/sh
[ $# -eq 0 ] && echo " ERROR: give some PDB identifier as argument"
type tkdiff >/dev/null 2>&1
[ $? -eq 0 ] && diff=tkdiff || diff=diff
for id in $@
do
i
There is a collection of posts (unfortunately with a number of spam
messages) at
http://wwpdb-remediation.rutgers.edu/mail-archive/
with various comments. Although I'm not familiar with the internal
workings of this remediation program, it seems indeed that the PDB
format is now largely auto-ge
On Saturday 21 July 2007 11:12, Joe Krahn wrote:
> we all use in our daily research. They don't even want to keep the PDB
> format at all. It's primary purpose now is for structural biologists.
That is inevitable. The PDB format is simply not capable of representing
the complexities of current cr
The new PDB format (version 3) has a lot of very useful improvements,
and an update is long overdue. However, I am irate that RCSB chose NOT
to use the ACA meeting to discuss the changes. Instead, the format is
being put into production at the same time as the ACA meeting. It is
essentially stating
