[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: Revised CIF syntax guidelines
- To: "Discussion list of the IUCr Committee for the Maintenance of the CIFStandard (COMCIFS)" <comcifs@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: Revised CIF syntax guidelines
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:40:13 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=UQkE=v99gt3vyzZaXQ5A-oQ1=F8L-ETC_jSb0@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTi=UQkE=v99gt3vyzZaXQ5A-oQ1=F8L-ETC_jSb0@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Colleagues, With regret, and after careful consideration, I will vote no on this proposal because of the phrase "only if" in section 1 makes 1.(i), 1.(ii), 1.(iv) excessively restrictive and because section 3 would prevent discussion of human factors issue. Without items 1.(i), 1.(ii), 1.(iv) and 3 I would vote for the document. Regards, Herbert At 3:20 PM +1100 3/31/11, James Hester wrote: >Dear COMCIFS, > >Please find below a slightly revised version of the guidelines for >developing base CIF syntax and semantics. I have taken the version >most recently posted by John Bollinger, and following discussion with >John Westbrook, have added a couple of points relating to maintaining >compatibility with previous versions of CIF (1 (vi) and (vii)). Note >also that I have also adjusted the text in 1 (ii) to refer to >scientific domains in which CIF is used, rather than scientific >domains in general. > >I plan to call a vote on accepting these guidelines following a short >further period for discussion of the revision below. > >============================================== >Principles guiding development of Base CIF 2.0 >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Preamble > >CIF is a framework for exchanging and archiving scientific data, >featuring a human-readable, machine-parseable, file format designed to >serve as an exchange and archive medium. 'Base' CIF comprises the >definitions and constraints that underlie CIF and apply to all CIF >files; those aspects defining the CIF file format are documented in >the CIF Syntax specification and the CIF Common Semantic Features >specification. > >Base CIF aims to remain as simple as possible by delegating >considerations such as ontology, vocabulary, data relationships, and >complex and rich data types to domain dictionaries and the DDL >formalisms by which those dictionaries are defined. In the following, >the phrase 'domain level' refers to such documents (though it is >anticipated that only dictionaries, not DDLs, will be >domain-specific). Definitions and constraints at domain level apply >to a particular CIF file only as declared by that file or as required >by a particular CIF processor in a particular context. > >Principles > >The design of base CIF 2.0 is guided by these principles: > >1. A feature should be added to or changed in base CIF only if all of >the following are satisfied: > > (i) Implementation of the desired behavior by changes at the domain >level is not feasible, or else such changes, while feasible, would >significantly reduce human readability; > (ii) the change provides significant new functionality that is widely >applicable to those scientific domains where CIF is used > (iii) reliable transfer and archiving of data is not compromised > (iv) there is no simpler way of achieving the desired behaviour > (v) it has been shown possible to implement the change at a cost >commensurate with its benefits, as demonstrated in part by a rough >consensus and running code. > (vi) Where possible, any new CIF syntax features should be developed >as an extension to the current standard, and thus not change the >interpretation of archival files that conform with previous versions >of the CIF standard. > (vii) Where it is impractical to provide for full backward compatibility as >described in (vi), the relevant archival repositories and software developers >should be consulted to arrive at a solution that will minimize the impact of >such changes. > > >2. As long as the requirements in (1) are satisfied, base CIF should: > (i) behave in a way that is consistent with common usage > (ii) align with pre-existing standards where those standards provide >the required behaviour. CIF 1.1 can be considered a pre-existing >standard for CIF 2.0 in this context. > >3. Non-technical issues should be dealt with in non-technical arenas. > >4. Draft changes to base CIF will be made available on the IUCr >website for public comment for a period of at least 6 weeks, following >which COMCIFS voting members, after consideration of any objections >raised, can vote to accept the change. A change will be accepted if >3/4 of COMCIFS voting members approve it. >=============== > >-- >T +61 (02) 9717 9907 >F +61 (02) 9717 3145 >M +61 (04) 0249 4148 >_______________________________________________ >comcifs mailing list >comcifs@iucr.org >http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs -- ===================================================== Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121 Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769 +1-631-244-3035 yaya@dowling.edu =====================================================
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- Revised CIF syntax guidelines (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Revised CIF syntax guidelines
- Next by Date: Recent JISC conference
- Prev by thread: Revised CIF syntax guidelines
- Next by thread: Re: Revised CIF syntax guidelines
- Index(es):