Re: [ddlm-group] Latest summary of proposed CIF syntax changes

With apologies to Nick for the delay, I have now posted the latest
draft of the revised CIF specification change document (dated 18 February
2010) at
http://www.iucr.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/40775/syntaxchangesproposed20100218.pdf

Nick has drawn my attention to the approach taken in this draft that
many of the restrictions required to CIF2 data files and names that
have been previously discussed on this list are a requirement of the
DDLm application of CIF2.

Hence this document is liberal with respect to what you can have. It
allows for a family of CIF2 applications that imposes minimal name
restrictions, *but such applications cannot be handled in a DDLm, dREL
framework*.

The implication is that if, for example, IUCr journals or other
stakeholders wished to take full advantage of DDLm/dREL (which, after
all, is the primary motivation for this line of development), they
would impose the additional necessary naming restrictions to ensure
that only DDLm/dREL-compliant CIFs were handled in their normal
workflow.

Regards
Brian
_________________________________________________________________________
Brian McMahon                                       tel: +44 1244 342878
Research and Development Officer                    fax: +44 1244 314888
International Union of Crystallography            e-mail:  bm@iucr.org
5 Abbey Square, Chester CH1 2HU, England
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group