On 01/20/2016 08:30 PM, Peter S. Shenkin wrote: > ... the problem that I thought we were trying to > address is rather the lack of extensibility, the lack of lower-case, the > fact that different users (even for deposited structures, IIRC) and > different software products overload the available fields differently (like > putting partial charge in the Temperature Factor field) and have violated > the standard by doing necessary but formally disallowed things ...
PDB has a format, with API and everything, that takes care of all of that. It's called mmCIF. After 25 years (or however long it's been around) nobody uses it outside of PDB. I've seen this discussion countless times. It always does this exact circle. Everybody wants to *have* a better format. Nobody wants to *use* it because it's "too complex" and "too difficult". In the meantime we are left trying to guess whether a given "CA" stands for C-alpha or calcium. -- Dimitri Maziuk Programmer/sysadmin BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________ Rdkit-discuss mailing list Rdkit-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
