Re: [ccp4bb]: structure factors etc

[<wgscott@chemistry.ucsc.edu>]

***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***


>
>
> I am sure this was not addressed to me but to the scientist previously 
> known
> as CD, currently as DVD and surely in the near future as mp3 or mpeg2 
> ...?

Neither.  Actually it wasn't really directed to anyone personally.  I'm 
just interested in the ideas behind each and their
similarities and differences.


>
> The structure factors are essential to let other people judge for 
> themselves
> the result you obtained.
>

There are many additional reasons for wanting access to Fobs.  It is 
unlikely with a 1.2 A resolution structure that there will
be much doubt where the atoms are located.  But there may be other 
reasons to want the Fobs, say to test a program, or to inspect the 
topology
of the electron density or some such thing.

At worst, you might have to reproduce crystals and collect your own 
data to check a structure.  So in a way these other reasons are 
actually more compelling.  They are also more attractive.

My guess is that if people understood there were many other (more 
positive) reasons, in addition to double-checking the veracity of a 
structure, that Fobs
should be made public, they would probably be more likely to comply.

> The source code is (essentially) useless for judging the result you or 
> anybody
> else obtained.

But it isn't useless for learning from, building upon, etc.

>
> 	Tassos
>
> PS Distributing code is good in an ideal world but there are often 
> other
> considerations which I am sure people can guess - the reasons are 
> similar to
> the ones that lead people not to publish in the web their complete 600 
> page
> lab-book about hot-hot-protein-X that was published in Nature last 
> week.
>

Right.  These unfortunately are the same reasons why some people don't 
deposit Fobs.