sounds good to me On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Daniel Russel wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Keren Lasker wrote: > >> ok - if you mean that Chain should not be part of the Hierarchy, I >> guess it makes sense, as usually protein == chain. > To make things clear, I'm using the IMP names, so CHAIN, PROTEIN are > HierarchyTypes and Chain is a decorator. So there would not be a > CHAIN hierarchy type, but a PROTEIN could be a Chain (if it has a > chain designator). Sounds a bit icky... > >> On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Keren Lasker wrote: >> >>> for me more then one chain is an assembly ( or complex) >>> I would leave Chain because in modeling sometimes people takes >>> domains from different places ( with different chain ids) and this >>> information might be useful. >>> On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Daniel Russel wrote: >>> >>>> Does it make sense to talk about a protein which consists of more >>>> than one chain? I've heard people use the words that way (and >>>> there are google hits, but not a huge number), but it was >>>> suggested that this is a misuse of the words. It would make the >>>> atom hierarchy a bit simpler to say a protein is a single chain >>>> and has HierarchyType PROTEIN (and to remove the CHAIN type). >>>> >>>> Authoritative answers? Votes? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IMP-dev mailing list >>>> IMP-dev@salilab.org >>>> https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IMP-dev mailing list >> IMP-dev@salilab.org >> https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev