Tweet
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