[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CIF development

• Subject: Re: CIF development
• From: "Richard G. Ball" <richard_ball@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:32:18 +0100 (BST)

On May 8, 12:25pm, Brian McMahon wrote:
[snip]
> It has always been a principle of CIF that old data names should always
> remain accessible. However, sometimes a new data name may be proposed that
> differs slightly in its meaning from an older one, and use of the older one
> is then discouraged.
[snip]
>
> To prevent the Core dictionary from becoming too cluttered over time
> with "obsolete" (though still valid) data names, I propose that the
> older data names be moved to a separate dictionary. Software to read
> all prior CIFs must then have access to both dictionaries. COMCIFS
> will soon release a protocol that will establish the location and access
> instructions for multiple dictionaries.


Along these lines I'd like to see (in a library of dictionary
access/manipulation tools) a routine that'll return the "new" name for a
deprecated dataname (and probably vice-versa). Simple pointers could be
present in the main dictionary so specialty dictionaries could be
loaded/searched for full validation but simple old-to-new name mapping should
be able to be handled using only one dictionary.

Brian, at the present time it appears that only one dictionary can be
associated with a given data block. Is that the case? If so then do all the
deprecated names have to live in a separate block linked to others via the
_audit_link_ mechanism?

Richard

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Prev by Date: Re: CIF development
• Next by Date: Re: CIF development
• Prev by thread: Re: CIF development
• Next by thread: Re: CIF development
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread