-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[New data item]: Method for indicating the data source for a structure - experimental vs calculated #475
Comments
Relevant discussion in the coreDMG mailing list: https://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/lists/coredmg/msg00429.html There was also a similar discussion by the OPTIMADE developers on introducing a similar enumerator (Materials-Consortia/OPTIMADE#455), however, it was quite difficult to agree on a limit where "experimental" ends and "theoretical" begins. The different types of "theoretical" methods also turned out quite difficult to agree upon. |
I missed That does look like the place to put this information, and yes, an enumeration does have a nice appeal. |
I think it would be good to pick up @vaitkus 's suggestions in the COMCIFS thread he references above. The issue is basically whether or not to redefine our own |
Definition
It would be nice to be able to easily distinguish structures derived from experimental data vs calculations (eg DFT).
There is currently no way to do this in a machine-readble manner.
Restricted values
Value should be drawn from a predefined list
Example
experimental
Explanation of example
the data source for this structure is experimental, (as opposed to calculated)
Looping
top level
Data name
_diffrn.data_source
Type
Word (text with no spaces)
Data structure
None (a single value of type given in Type above)
Comments
_diffrn.data_source experimental
_diffrn.data_source calculated
Suggestions from meeting between CPD and IUCr.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: