IDB> The values of this flag were taken directly from the original core IDB> dictionary. I merely broke a single refinement_flag item into three IDB> separate items, so there was no discussion about whether these flags were IDB> appropriate. Curt's suggestions are good. > The DDL provides the opportunity to point out that a particular item has > been replaced by another item (or that it conveys the same information in > another form). It does not, apparently, provide for a message to say that > the present item replaces an earlier and discontinued data item. Thus > when a discontinued item that was originally defined in an earlier version > of the dictionary is also included (for completeness) in a later version > that includes its replacement, the presence of a _related_item field > points the user to the new name that should be used. The DDL provides no > way to indicate that the present item replaces one that was previously > used to convey the same information. As mind-bending as the Quiconque Vult (sorry about my misspelling of the title of this admirable text). IDB> I will remove the offending word. Don't. It is not offensive. H.
Copyright © International Union of CrystallographyIUCr Webmaster