[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders
- From: John Westbrook <jwest@pdb-mail.rutgers.edu>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:59:18 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0911300636400.56763@epsilon.pair.com>
- References: <C7398588.126B6%nick@csse.uwa.edu.au> <275884.79342.qm@web87006.mail.ird.yahoo.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.0911300636400.56763@epsilon.pair.com>
The wwPDB will provide collective comment on issues of policy with respect to its use of CIF. wwPDB should include the BMRB as an organization as well. Comments to lists regarding changes to CIF or mmCIF need to be vetted carefully by all of these groups prior to any public announcements. To give the impression that CIF is suddenly changing may be very detrimental to the entire CIF/mmCIF enterprise and could well reverse the progress in adoption of this format. Regards, John Herbert J. Bernstein wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Before this discussion goes much further on any of its threads, I > would suggest agreeing on a list of stakeholders and consulting them > on what has been proposed and trying to come up with an external > user specification that they understand and agree to. Some of > the stakeholders that come to mind are: > > 1. The PDB in Rutgers > 2. The PDB in Europe > 3. The PDB in Japan > 4. People to speak for the Powder diffraction community > 5. People to speak for the NMR community > 6. The IUCr journal operation > 7. CCDC > 8. The writers of the various structure solution packages that > write (and in some cases read) CIF files > 9. The writers of visualization programs that read (and in some > cases write) CIF files > 10. The synchrotron data collection community. > 11. Service crystallographers > 12. Diffraction equipment vendors > > I expect I have missed some and hope that others will add to this list. > > I would suggest we prepare a summary of the current best definition of > CIF 2 and, if this groups accepts the idea, CIF 1.5, and send it out > the lists that cover these stakeholders, starting with the PDB and CCP4 > lists, and see what feedback we get. > > Regards, > 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 > ===================================================== > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Space as a list item separator (Nick Spadaccini)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Space as a list item separator (SIMON WESTRIP)
- [ddlm-group] Stakeholders (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Space as a list item separator
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders
- Index(es):