*[SPAM]* Draft Phase Identifier Report version 1
S. C. Abrahams sca at mind.netSat Jan 3 10:35:06 GMT 2004
- Next message: *[SPAM]* Draft Phase Identifier Report version 1
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear David: Many thanks for your message of December 23 and the accompanying draft Working Group Report. On checking the IUCr phase-identifier archive before replying, it was a surprise to find your item entitled "Discussion 6" in it. Most likely, that item had been misidentified as spam on arrival in my mailbox as had this message. I regret the earlier item was not noticed subsequently among the excessive quantity of spam now received daily. May I start by suggesting WG members may find the July 2002 presentation on preliminary thinking about IChI to be of interest, as given at: http://www.iupac.org/symposia/conferences/CIandXML_jul02/ICHI_Stein_jul2002. pdf although the summary in your Section 5 shows that considerable progress has been made since that conference. However, members may well wish to see further details of the results agreed upon during the IChI workshop at NIST in November 2003. Are these expected to become available soon? I am in full agreement with your proposal that a unique comprehensive identifier for each chemical compound be formed by adding the crystal phase identifier to the IChI chemical identifier. In reading your first draft, however, it is striking that no mention is made of the proposed method(s) of implementing such a system, possibly because they seem obvious to the specialist. However, a number of questions are likely to arise in reading our Report and I suggest it would be of value to our readers if it contained a section that addressed these and related issues so that our recommendations are set in their fullest context. These issues include the following: once a unique identifier system has been agreed, must it be reduced to a single algorithm to avoid the introduction of variant identifiers? If the latter is the case, then would it be advantageous to state or merely refer to the algorithm? Must each database adapt the algorithm to match its specific contents or is that the responsibility of the user? To the extent possible, the new section should respond to these and similar questions. More detailed comments follow: In the example of a material with a single crystal form, OsI3, I nopte it is not listed in the ICSD. Perhaps a better choice should be made? I agree with your proposal to add three crystallographic layers to the four IChI chemical layers. The choice between single and multiple letter codes depends upon the answers given to the questions above. I also agree with use of the space group number for layer 6 and, if necessary, with the Wyckoff multiplicity and letters in layer 7. I doubt if use of the Bravais symbol in the identifier would be of value. Addition of the comprehensive IChI identifier in a new field, probably the leading field, in the CCN phase nomenclature [see Acta Cryst. (2001). A57, 614-626 and Acta Cryst. (1998). A54, 1028-1033)] would be appropriate in database compilations. It would probably be inappropriate elsewhere. Happy New Year! Sidney ------------------------------------------ Prof. S. C. Abrahams Physics Department Southern Oregon University Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-6415 Tel. (541) 482-7942 Email: sca at mind.net ------------------------------------------ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.557 / Virus Database: 349 - Release Date: 12/30/2003
- Next message: *[SPAM]* Draft Phase Identifier Report version 1
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the phase-identifiers mailing list