I definitely agree, that's why I suggested at least a table giving the
various components included- but in the end people still want to tell people
a one word response to "what force field did you use?" and have it be
recognized.
maybe this doesn't matter as much as I think, and we could just go with
numbers (not related to release year) like charmm.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM, <dcerutti.rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> Perhaps a good response to this naming problem would be to put some
> information in chapter 1 or 2 of the manual concerning all of these force
> fields. The details could go in an appendix, but that appendix should
> then be mentioned prominently in several places to make sure that any time
> someone is reading through the manual to learn how to do something related
> to implementing force fields, they find the list of force fields with
> related descriptions and references. It would also help the community to
> unravel the process of citing force fields, which can be complicated if
> the force field is borrowing various terms from its predecessors.
>
> Dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Thu Apr 28 2011 - 13:30:04 PDT
