Restraints dictionary submitted for approval
jamesrhester at gmail.com
Wed Jun 30 01:54:23 BST 2010
Dear COMCIFS members and observers:
Herbert's comment and suggested solution make sense to me, but I
rarely have a need to do such refinements. Would anybody else like to
comment on his suggestion?
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein
<yaya at bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> atom_site_rigid_body_id seems intended to allow a given atom
> to be part of only a single rigid body. Should we not also
> allow for the possibility of hinge points in which a single atom
> may be part of two rigid bodies being joined? The current
> definition only allows for two rigid bodies linked by a bond,
> rather than by a common atom. If we do this, this will require
> another category organized by the rigid body id with pointers
> to the atoms in the body, rather than the current approach of
> pointers from atom_site to the rigid bodies.
> I would suggest an atom_site_rigid_bodies catgeory, with
> _atom_site_rigid_bodies_id and atom_site_rigid_bodies_label
> to give the rigid body id and atom site label pairs involved.
> Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
> Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
> Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
> yaya at dowling.edu
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, James Hester wrote:
>> Dear COMCIFS members,
>> Ilia Guzei and David Brown have submitted the dictionary appended below
>> for approval by COMCIFS.
>> The dictionary defines items for reporting restraints and constraints
>> applied during structure
>> refinement. They have consulted with the principal writers of refinement
>> software as well as with
>> the Core Dictionary Maintenance Group who have approved the attached
>> document. The dictionary
>> contains comments that explain the philosophy behind the dictionary as
>> well as identifying the
>> different restraints and constraints that are covered.
>> I suggest that voting members of COMCIFS register their vote to
>> approve/reject as soon as is
>> practicable, but in any case no more than 6 weeks from today's date.
>> James Hester
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
More information about the comcifs