[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: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:09:56 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <279aad2a0911301456g4f6a36c3o9493fdc2f330637f@mail.gmail.com>
- Organization: RCSB Protein Data Bank
- 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> <4B13CFB6.5000405@pdb-mail.rutgers.edu> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0911300927480.56763@epsilon.pair.com><279aad2a0911301456g4f6a36c3o9493fdc2f330637f@mail.gmail.com>
Hi James and Herb, My comments are not directed at the style of organizing a software engineering effort, rather my concerns related to standardization and managing change from the perspective of an archive. Circulating a request for comment on community lists carries an implication impending change. For PDB users this will be viewed by many as adding confusion and complexity to a format that is already viewed as over complicated. I think that James' suggestion to post this on the cif-developers list is perhaps the best path forward. John James Hester wrote: > Dear all: > > Let's remember that we are only talking about the syntax specification > here, and as such our audience is almost completely restricted to > software authors. I would therefore have thought that the > cif-developers list would be a suitable forum to post a syntax draft. > > The process I had envisioned runs like this: > > 1. We finalise a syntax specification in this group - I remind you that > we only have one or two outstanding issues, both of which could be drawn > to a close with a vote fairly soon as we have had enough time to air our > opinions; > > 2. The draft syntax specification is posted on the IUCr website together > with an information page describing brief reasons for our choices, and > directing people to the archive of our discussions; > > 3. Feedback is requested from COMCIFS (who will have to approve it) and > the cif-developers list (where most of the people directly affected are > located), and any other appropriate list > > 4. We discuss and incorporate this feedback into our final draft, which > we submit to COMCIFS for approval. > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein > <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com <mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>> wrote: > > Dear John, > > I understand your point. You are espousing the classic hierarchical > view of software engineering as seen in joint application design and > other > middle-manager-to-middle-manager design protocols. I am espousing the > Scandinavian method, also called participatory design, in which > implementors deal directly with users. > > Both approaches have their passionate adherents. I suggest the > following compromise to allow us to benefit from the virtues of both > approaches: > > 1. Whatever the current state of the design of CIF2 and CIF 1.5, the > essential user externals issues be summarized in a "one-pager" to be > reviewed and approved by this group, hopefully within the next week. > > 2. Then James, in the name of this group, forward that document > to the > appropriate managerial level contacts for the stakeholders, asking them > for their thoughts and comments, say by the beginning of the new year. > > 3. Then, in response to that feedback, that this group try to have a > revised one-pager vetted both by this group and by any interested > managerial level contacts, say by the beginning of February. > > 4. Then, the revised one-pager be posted to the appropriate lists > for a > six-week comment period. > > That should then put us in good shape to have something to discuss with > people at the ACA meeting in summer 2010. > > 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 <mailto:yaya@dowling.edu> > ===================================================== > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, John Westbrook wrote: > > > 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 <mailto:yaya@dowling.edu> > >> ===================================================== > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ddlm-group mailing list > >> ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org> > >> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > > _______________________________________________ > > ddlm-group mailing list > > ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org> > > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > > > _______________________________________________ > ddlm-group mailing list > ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto: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]
- 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)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders (John Westbrook)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Space as a list item separator
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Role of separators in CIF
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders
- Index(es):