Thanks for bringing this up front Ed. Specifically bringing your second point to the forefront. Do we need to do it? Or to rephrase it more directly .. WHY do we need to do it?
Answering why we need to do it will really help with compliance. Lest we not forget we are asking the general crystallography community (which encompasses a large variety of interests in competition with the interest to archive the actual images) to go an additional step and provide detailed metadata (among other things). Of course you could force the community into compliance but I'm pretty sure we can motivate behavior without threats. So I ask again, are there literature examples where reevaluation of the crystallographic data has directly resulted in new biological insights into the system being modeled? On Oct 27, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Ed Pozharski wrote: > 1. How to do it. > > That is what the other thread is dealing with and my overall feeling is > that difficulties have been largely exaggerated early on. You are right > that concrete steps can be taken. > > 2. Do we need to do it. > > To me, it's no-brainer, but some responses seem to suggest not everyone > is really on board. Again, I am sure this has to be done, but consensus > in this area is equally important. --------------------------------------------- Francis E. Reyes M.Sc. 215 UCB University of Colorado at Boulder
