fine - I personally prefer name, but you are the boss :) On Feb 13, 2008, at 4:35 PM, Ben Webb wrote:
> Keren Lasker wrote: >>> 2. The atom type could be argued to really be 'name', since, for >>> example, AT_CG1 and AT_CG2 are both carbon, and this is orthogonal >>> from >>> the CHARMM forcefield type (probably CT2 or CT3). >> In modeller this data is stored as name > > Indeed - the name of the atom largely determines its type, so the two > are somewhat intertwined. > >> We should just use what ever is the convention - which I thought was >> name, but if not than we can leave it as it is. > > As with everything related to PDB, I don't think there is any kind of > convention. > > Ben > -- > ben@salilab.org http://salilab.org/~ben/ > "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." > - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev