-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
recording internal/external standard QPA #46
recording internal/external standard QPA #46
Conversation
The errors were: Parsing ./cif_pow.dic ... Error code 102 at line 956, column 48, near "": invalid encoded character Error code 102 at line 956, column 48, near "": invalid encoded character Error code 102 at line 956, column 48, near "": invalid encoded character Error code 133 at line 1039, column 34, near "_pd_calib_std": missing data value Error code 133 at line 1040, column 4, near "_name.object_id": missing data value The "invalid encoded character" errors did not point to the correct line numbers.
My knowledge of use of internal/external standards is insufficient to really judge this. I think a few sentences of summary of the meaning and use of internal/external standards would be good in the description of the |
Will add some words. A single internal/external std is a very reasonable assumption; I don't think you could make it work with multiple stds. |
also, I removed _pd_calib_std.external_phase_block_id and _pd_calib_std.external_phase_id, as _pd_calib_std.external_block_id is enough to link to the diffraction data used as the calibrant. Links to phases and whatnot, can be found from there. There should also be a _pd_calib_std.external_diffractogram_id once that gets up.
I'm trying to figure out how to do less data duplication. If I'm reporting several diffractograms in the same container, all calibrated against the same external standard dataset, it would be good just to have one value of Is it legitimate to state in the description that it is preferred that If the calibration data are not available, and all you have is the value of K, then just use This means you'd write something like:
|
If I'm more concerned about how we fix the whole calibration story in pdCIF. Regarding doing better, we have two options that I can see:
I prefer option (2) as it offers more flexibility. It would be interesting to see what a |
I could forsee a dataset where every diffraction pattern has it's own K; I've done it this year when calibrating a secondary standard. |
Me too. For what do we use standard datasets? To calibrate angles and intensities. Why do we calibrate angles? In my mind, to determine wavelength, or when used as an internal standard, to get precise cell edges for the other phases in the specimen. Why do we calibrate intensities? Probably most likely to measure incident flux (probably in order to create a How fine-grained did you want to make the categories? |
w_a = (sZMV)_a * MAC_specimen / K To get the absolute weight fraction, you need to know the scale factor, unit cell mass, and unit cell volume for a phases, the MAC of the entire unknown specimen, and the diffractometer constant, K. There already exists You then just need K and a way to specify that a particular diffraction pattern is using a particular K from somewhere else (or just to list it in the data block), or that a particular diffraction pattern is the source of the value K. .
In the data block of the external standard, to record all of the pertinant information:
and unknown would be
|
|
How about this? I think once this is fleshed out, it will deprecate QPAIs it possible to force contraindicators? ie you can only have one of the following three categories? I don't think it makes sense to use more than one QPA method on a single diffractogram. Anyhoo: External standard
The category consists of:
Internal standard
The category consists of:
edit this next section is a bad idea.
|
The non-QPA parts of the comment at #46 (comment) should be a new issue along the lines of "Improve calibration metadata in pdCIF files". Just to keep this pull request discussion focused. |
Well for a given detector and standard I'm assuming there could only be one diffractogram, so any 2 out of the three are sufficient. Detector and standard material strike me as more fundamental, that's all. |
Regarding the I don't understand the comment above about the RIR phases needing a loop. As I understand it a particular compound is chosen as the RIR reference, the RIR value is looked up, and then the rest of the phases can be quantified using their own tabulated RIR values? |
That's why it felt icky. Also need to add a
I don't know what I meant as well. RIR is a phase property, and you only need an RIR per phase in a mixture and you can quant it - it's "standardless". |
I don't know. Can't you then just change out all I've put in |
I've created External standard
The category consists of:
Internal standard
The category consists of:
|
RIR
The category consists of:
|
but the line/column numbers don't point to anything like the error...
The line numbers were 7453, 7455, 7456, and 7459; not 7412.
Ideally this would be 3 different pull requests for external, internal and RIR as there is a lot to deal with. I've looked through the definitions and can't see any obvious issues so have merged. I believe the next step is to write up the way in which QPA results should be expressed in a pdCIF file in a way that is suitable for review by a QPA expert, and for inclusion in Vol G chapter on powder diffraction. The process of writing this up may expose any missing information as well and hopefully generate some examples. |
A first pass at adding the capability to record quantiative phases analysis by internal or external standard approaches.
See #12