Giovanni Legnani. University Of Brescia - Italy - Europeancommunity

07-15-1993, 10:28 PM

Dear bioch-l readers,

at the last ISB congress an important annoncement have been made.

The commission for standardization and terminology is finishing its

work on kinematic data and a final recomendation will be soon(?) available.

The use of this standard could become mondatory to publish on some journals.

During the congress I had informal talks with other people and we agreed

that this operation must be done carefully.

In fact the discussion (by biomch-l and the newsletter) highlighted that

thare are a number of controversial points. So I suggest that the standardizatio

n

should be "mandatory" only for the parts were there are NON substantial disagree

ment

on important facts.

For example the choiche of the axis X, Y or Z to denote the vertical direction

is just a matter of preference, on the contrary in the choice of the angular

conventions to describe the orientation of a body there are a number of

problems related with phisical meanning, mathematical problems, etc.....

Thes epoints must be discussed a little bit more before make a choice.

When a final suitable decision cannot be made, the commission should

recomand a number of possible alternatives.

An effort must be done in order to be correct in the use of the terms.

for example the term Euler angle is used wrongly in the standardization proposal

as it appears in the newsletter n.45 (feb-mar-1992). In fact the XYZ sequence of

rotations are a Cardanic convention, while the TRUE Euler angles define

a ZYZ sequance of rotation.

So since it is better to have no standard rather than having a BAD standard,

I recommend further discussion on this subject.

Giovanni

at the last ISB congress an important annoncement have been made.

The commission for standardization and terminology is finishing its

work on kinematic data and a final recomendation will be soon(?) available.

The use of this standard could become mondatory to publish on some journals.

During the congress I had informal talks with other people and we agreed

that this operation must be done carefully.

In fact the discussion (by biomch-l and the newsletter) highlighted that

thare are a number of controversial points. So I suggest that the standardizatio

n

should be "mandatory" only for the parts were there are NON substantial disagree

ment

on important facts.

For example the choiche of the axis X, Y or Z to denote the vertical direction

is just a matter of preference, on the contrary in the choice of the angular

conventions to describe the orientation of a body there are a number of

problems related with phisical meanning, mathematical problems, etc.....

Thes epoints must be discussed a little bit more before make a choice.

When a final suitable decision cannot be made, the commission should

recomand a number of possible alternatives.

An effort must be done in order to be correct in the use of the terms.

for example the term Euler angle is used wrongly in the standardization proposal

as it appears in the newsletter n.45 (feb-mar-1992). In fact the XYZ sequence of

rotations are a Cardanic convention, while the TRUE Euler angles define

a ZYZ sequance of rotation.

So since it is better to have no standard rather than having a BAD standard,

I recommend further discussion on this subject.

Giovanni