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
--
http://salilab.org/~ben/
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
_______________________________________________
IMP-dev mailing list
https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev