[ccp4bb] PDB format survey?

Protein crystallography Programs for crystallography X-ray detectors
Basic tutorials:
Protein Peptide

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 2007 <-- August 2007 <-- 01 August 2007

Previous message:
Subject: Re: how to bring back the missing density for half of the structure
From: Anastassis Perrakis a {- dot -} perrakis {- at -} NKI {- dot -} NL
Date: 2007-08-01

Next message:
Subject: pseudo-translation vectors in molrep vs other programs
From: Savvas Savvides savvas {- dot -} savvides {- at -} UGENT {- dot -} BE
Date: 2007-08-01

Subject: PDB format survey?
From: Joe Krahn krahn {- at -} NIEHS {- dot -} NIH {- dot -} GOV
Date: 2007-08-01

So, I am thinking about putting up a survey somewhere to get a measure
of the user-communities interests, because RCSB and wwPDB seem
uninterested in doing so. Maybe a group result would be more useful in
influencing the standards. I am hoping that the wwPDB can become a
better place for format standards instead of RCSB which keeps busy
handling new data.

In addition to questions about the PDB standard, it is probably
important to consider mmCIF. One thing I don't like about it is that
columns can be randomized (i.e. X, Y, and Z can be in any column), but
the mmCIF standards people have no interest in defining a more strict
standard that would require files to be as human readable as RCSB's
mmCIF files.

Does this sound useful, or have most people given up on having any
influence on standards? Or, should the structural biology software
developers get together and just make our own OpenPDB format?

Joe Krahn

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 2007 <-- August 2007 <-- 01 August 2007

Previous message:
Subject: Re: how to bring back the missing density for half of the structure
From: Anastassis Perrakis a {- dot -} perrakis {- at -} NKI {- dot -} NL
Date: 2007-08-01

Next message:
Subject: pseudo-translation vectors in molrep vs other programs
From: Savvas Savvides savvas {- dot -} savvides {- at -} UGENT {- dot -} BE
Date: 2007-08-01