-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all,
isn't the ccp4bb a very good example that spam may not be such an issue for a discussion platform on structures in the PDB? There is a great variety of opinions, some to agree with, some to disagree, but all of them interesting and contributing, and I hardly remember a message I would classify as spam. And it all works without restraints. Best, Tim On 05/15/2014 03:21 PM, Zachary Wood wrote: > I agree with Martyn, > > Pubmed Commons could be a great model. I believe you have to be a > published author to obtain an account. It might cut down on some of > the spam/noise if the PDB adopted such a model for depositors. > > Best regards, > > Z > > > *********************************************** Zachary A. Wood, > Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biochemistry & Molecular > Biology University of Georgia Life Sciences Building, Rm A426B 120 > Green Street Athens, GA 30602-7229 Office: 706-583-0304 Lab: > 706-583-0303 FAX: 706-542-1738 > *********************************************** > > > > > > > > On May 15, 2014, at 7:29 AM, MARTYN SYMMONS > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree some forum for community annotation and commenting would >> be a good thing for users of structural data. There was an >> attempt to do that with the pdbwiki project which was a community >> resource for the bioinformatics community. Unfortunately pdbwiki >> has now folded (see http://pdbwiki.org/) They are now directing >> people to Proteopedia. However Proteopedia has a more educative >> focus I think - rather than capturing technical questions and >> input. >> >> Pubmed commons (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons/), >> which is a forum for discussing the literature, is currently >> under testing. Perhaps this is the sort of thing that could work >> for structural data? >> >> cheers Martyn >> >> From: Ethan A Merritt <[email protected]> To: >> [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2014, 19:22 >> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PDB passes 100,000 structure milestone >> >> On Wednesday, 14 May, 2014 13:52:02 Phil Jeffrey wrote: >>> As long as it's just a Technical Comments section - an obvious >>> concern would be the signal/noise in the comments themselves. >>> I'm sure PDB would not relish having to moderate that lot. >>> >>> Alternatively PDB can overtly link to papers that discuss >>> technical issues that reference the particular structure - >>> wrong or fraudulent structures are often associated with >>> refereed publications that point that out, and structures with >>> significant errors often show up in that way too. I once did a >>> journal club on Muller (2013) Acta Cryst F69:1071-1076 and wish >>> that could be associated with the relevant PDB file(s). >> >> Perhaps some combination of those two ideas? >> >> The PDB could associate with each deposited structure a >> crowd-sourced list of published articles citing it. They >> already make an effort to attach the primary citation, but so far >> as I know there is currently no effort to track subsequent >> citations. >> >> While spam comments in a free-format forum are probably >> inevitable, spam submission of citing papers seems less likely to >> be a problem. >> >> - Ethan >> >>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Zachary Wood >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello All, >>>> >>>> Instead of placing the additional burden of policing on the >>>> good people at the PDB, perhaps the entry page for each >>>> structure could contain a comments section. Then the >>>> community could point out serious concerns for the less >>>> informed users. At least that will give users some warning in >>>> the case of particularly worrisome structures. The authors of >>>> course could still reply to defend their structure, and it >>>> may encourage some people to even correct their errors. >>>> >> -- Ethan A Merritt Biomolecular Structure Center, K-428 Health >> Sciences Bldg MS 357742, University of Washington, Seattle >> 98195-7742 >> >> > > - -- - -- Dr Tim Gruene Institut fuer anorganische Chemie Tammannstr. 4 D-37077 Goettingen GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFTdMOTUxlJ7aRr7hoRAinqAJ9tAzMX6DSeFO7hiyEEqFhCPV7IxQCgg0Ay Ya6HwJD/ugPU1dwGHNAJfkQ= =JABI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
