One issue that came up informally during the DDD meeting at Bergen
concerns the ever‐vexed issue of image file formats, and whether the
imgCIF/CBF standard (I’ll just call it imgCIF from now on) is being
used in the best way. The issue seems to be, not with what is
NECESSARY for an image to be a valid imgCIF, but what is SUFFICIENT
for it to be fully useful in the future.
What we would like to ensure I suppose is that all the information
needed for processing the image in the future, is in fact correctly
encoded in the image header using the standard imgCIF “data
names”. Maybe we could come up with a compliance test program, perhaps
derived from already‐existing automated processing software, which has
all knowledge of specific detector types stripped out, so that it
depends strictly and solely on the CIF header.
This is a public forum that invites community input on strategies and desirable practices in providing open and long-term access to diffraction data sets.
Moderator: Brian McMahon
1 post • Page 1 of 1