Dear Jonas, I did not receive your email directly, but as the one who made the recent BODR releases, I do feel obliged to respond; if you are angry at the BODR development, I take that personally. That's fine, but I was not aware that I had let you down.
On 30 Jul 2007 14:34:21 +0100, Dr P. Murray-Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 30 2007, Jonas Frantz wrote: > >let me give you a recap of this whole mess as I see it: I have apparently missed big blobs of the discussion, because the 'mess' I received before your reply consists 4 emails... > > 1. It all started of with me suggesting that we should add some > > information (Bravais lattice names and lattice constants) to bodr about > > the most common crystal structures of elements, because I'd be interested > > to use bodr to fetch element information to gperiodic. That's the whole point of BODR: to provide a common data base of chemical/physical properties. I would not call crystal structure elemental properties, but close enough. I do remember some discussion of putting in crystal structures in for elements, quite some months ago. At that moment I made the remark too that a crystal structure is not an elemental property; are you referring to that discussion when using the term 'mess'? BTW, I never wanted to imply that crystal structures of single element compounds cannot be in BODR; I might have said that the elements.xml is not the place to do it. > > This information > > is required if I want to do the effort of importing bodr information into > > gperiodic because gperiodics users need it. I give an example of how I > > think this information _could_ be included (note! only a humble example). It's important to get things right in BODR, but hate to see people get disappointed because of implementation details. > > 2. This results in a heated discussion, most replies about how this is > > not going to work and how it's not the best way, and so on. No one seems > > to want to come to a conclusion. I try to mediate to achieve the result > > I'd like to see. This only results in even more bitching and moaning. I am not sure what this is referring to. I do not remember a heated discussion with bitching and moaning... is this supposed to have happened on the BO mailing list? If so, I really need to check my SPAM filter. > >3. As far as I see it this is where we stand: > > - I've given up on getting this information from bodr > > - I've lost my motivation for contributing to bodr I find this disturbing... I feel sorry that I have not made you feel welcome and appreciated. > > - bodr hasn't become any better (well, not any worse either) Say again? There are two open bug reports, one of which is technical in nature (implementation details), the other one resolved, but not closed. If you have bug reports, please file them at: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=928367&group_id=189199&func=browse I'll make sure to fix them, or get them fixed. Kind regards, Egon ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
