[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:14:32 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <279aad2a0910271602j43777cf8xb2d8b9cf2d2d5cb9@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <4AE70F95.5000702@niehs.nih.gov><279aad2a0910271602j43777cf8xb2d8b9cf2d2d5cb9@mail.gmail.com>
Agreed. -- Herbert ===================================================== 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 ===================================================== On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, James Hester wrote: > I believe that Joe's suggestion of mandating a CIF2.0 header comment > coincides with Brian's earlier suggestion that this should now be > mandatory. We should also note David's comment that we must now be > careful about stating that comments can be discarded from files, as > the first line comment may be a special case. > > Regarding David's comment, I think that we can proceed by stating that > any program that writes a CIF must put in the mandatory CIF2.0 (or > whatever it turns out to be) comment in the header. This would > include programs that simply strip comments and then write something > out. > > Are we all agreed on having a mandatory header? > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov> wrote: >> IMHO, there should be some sort of header to distinguish CIF variants, >> sort of like the DOCTYPE line at the top of XML files. This will help >> deal with CIF1 files that are not CIF2 compliant, and could also better >> handle more extreme variants, like binary CIF. The current syntax >> suggests, but does not require, an initial comment line starting with #CIF. >> >> I proposed to the COMCIFS list that global_ could be used for this >> purpose. In this way, global_ would only be read by the parser, and not >> be considered as part of the actual CIF data. The idea is to use the >> existing STAR syntax instead of designing something new. The >> disadvantage is that the global_ section itself would have to maintain a >> restricted 7-bit ASCII format, and not allow any of the newer STAR/CIF >> syntax. So, the "simplicity" of just using the existing STAR syntax >> really is not there. >> >> Alternatively, the initial CIF comment line could be made a requirement >> rather than a suggestion, and also define a way to include additional >> file attributes in the form of param=value pairs. For example, a CIF2 >> file could add "binary=true" to indicate the presence of binary >> sections, rather than binary-CIF having to be a completely separate format. >> >> If extra file attributes seem like an unnecessary complication, then >> maybe at least the simple comment line could be made a requirement? >> Then, you can distinguish CIF2 files, and assume that any file without a >> comment is CIF1. >> >> Joe Krahn >> _______________________________________________ >> ddlm-group mailing list >> ddlm-group@iucr.org >> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group >> > > > > -- > T +61 (02) 9717 9907 > F +61 (02) 9717 3145 > M +61 (04) 0249 4148 > _______________________________________________ > ddlm-group mailing list > ddlm-group@iucr.org > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] CIF header (Joe Krahn)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF header
- Index(es):