[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:44:25 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <820954.36334.qm@web87008.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
- References: <AANLkTi=10bAFL1EPXQyAdthQFEkcmGKhpjcbhm5UF31-@mail.gmail.com><957185.79909.qm@web87012.mail.ird.yahoo.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1010081831160.63987@epsilon.pair.com><348514.9932.qm@web87014.mail.ird.yahoo.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1010090715560.21123@epsilon.pair.com><820954.36334.qm@web87008.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
To me that looks very doable. I would suggest we put the concatenation into CIF2 and try to get this sort of on-the-fly evaluation into some early update. It looks like it would obviate a lot of methods calls and be very readable. ===================================================== 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 Sat, 9 Oct 2010, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: > Dear all > > The following is something that ought to be left until CIF3, but > perhaps there is no harm in introducing the concept here, in support of a > string concatenation mechanism (and partly because any feedback would be > useful > to me in exploring ways to include 'richer' content in CIFs for publication > purposes). > > With the introduction of a string-concatenation mechanism, something I have > been thinking about > for some time has become a real possibility (to my mind at least). > > Basically, I've been looking for a mechanism to reference another data value > in a data value without having to > make the reference using some sort of application-specific escape sequence > within the value. > > With a concatenation mechanism, something like the following beomes > possible: > > > _publ_text > ; > ...Most of this text is written according to traditional cif text markup > conventions... > However, here is an equation written in TeX... > > ; _ $_publ_object_value{"data_":"I" "_publ_object_id":"1"} _ > ; > ...If it were included in TeX directly in this text field there would be no > way of knowing that the syntax was intended to be interpretted and processed > as TeX... > ; > > > In this example the publ_object is defined by a loop: > > loop_ > _publ_object_id > _publ_object_type > _publ_object_value > 1 'tex' 'W^{1} = \matrix{1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 > \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr}' > ... > > The structure of the 'reference' could be seen as a 'query language' in this > context - > > $_publ_object_value reads 'VALUE OF _publ_object_value' > > {"data_":"I" "_publ_object_id":"1"} reads "WHERE the data block id is 'I' > and _publ_object_id is '1'" > > Such queries could be nested when e.g. loops are related by key values. > > This concept is based on using the $ and assumes that $ has no other > syntactic use in this context > at this level (I suspect it may have use in dREL but havent found reference > to it in the docs I've seen - nor the DDLm docs)? > > In addition, although it utilizes syntax 'structures' that will already be > in CIF2 and builds on the concepts of dREL/DDLm, > it would still require its own 'chapter' in the specification and close > scrutiny to ensure that it is a robust specification > (there are a number of issues to address, e.g. the value returned by the > query must obviously be of the appropriate type > for the item that invoked the query, or castable; ... if more than one value > matches the query, should it be returned using a list structure...etc.). > Furthermore, it is not the sort of thing that you would expect to be > implemented 'by hand'. > > However, without a concatenation mechanism, there would be no point in me > exploring this at all > (part of my work for the IUCr involves such exploration). > > Cheers > > Simon > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > From: Herbert J. Bernstein <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> > To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org> > Sent: Saturday, 9 October, 2010 12:24:27 > Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings > > The change in the handling of an underscore in a tag name (requiring > at least one more character) is a good idea in any case (whether > or not the use for cancatenation is adopted). I suggest we put that > change to a vote promptly and separately. > > As a matter of clean style, the use of whitespace around the underscore > is certainly a good idea for a compliant CIF2 writer. > > ===================================================== > 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 Sat, 9 Oct 2010, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: > > > I would prefer the first form only - i.e. treat the lonely underscore as a > > 'keyword' > > and thus require separation by whitespace. But this preference has more to > > do with fitting > > this operator element in the current 'classes' of cif elements. > > > > On a related point, the draft spec states: > > > > "A data name begins with an ASCII _ and may be followed by any number of > > characters within the 2048 > > character restriction." > > > > I think this should read: > > > > "A data name begins with an ASCII _ and is followed by one or more > > characters within the 2048 > > character restriction." > > > > Or words to that effect - especially if the underscore is adopted as an > > operator. > > > > Cheers > > > > Simon > > > > > >___________________________________________________________________________ > _ > > From: Herbert J. Bernstein <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> > > To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries > <ddlm-group@iucr.org> > > Sent: Friday, 8 October, 2010 23:38:10 > > Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings > > > > I think it is. > > > > The current form of the proposal, as per your suggestion, is: > > > > > > "string1" _ "string2" or > > "string1"_"string2" > > etc. > > > > will represent the concatenation of string1 and string2 > > for any quoted strings, string1 and string2 using any > > of the valid quote marks. > > > > The first form does not conflict with any valid cif2 > > or cif1 construct unless we accept underscore by itself as > > a tag. The second form does conflict with a cif1 > > quoted string and therefore should not be used if there > > is any ambiguity as to whether the file in question > > is a cif1 or a cif2 file. > > ===================================================== > > 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 Fri, 8 Oct 2010, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: > > > > > Dear all > > > > > > "Once we resolve the string concatenation operator issue..." > > > > > > Is this issue still on the table? > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Simon > > > > >>__________________________________________________________________________ > _ > > ______________________________________________________ > > > From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com> > > > To: ddlm-group <ddlm-group@iucr.org> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010 23:52:08 > > > Subject: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings > > > > > > Dear DDLm group, > > > > > > The encoding group that was split off this group and tasked with > > > developing a mutually satisfactory approach to encodings in CIF2 has > > > now produced an updated draft of the CIF2 'changes' document. Brian > > > has posted this on the IUCr website at > >>http://www.iucr.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/41911/cif2_syntax_changes_ > j > > rh20101005.pdf > > > The changes relative to the July draft are in section 2 describing the > > > character set, and some additional text in section 1. > > > > > > Once we resolve the string concatenation operator issue, I think we > > > are in good shape to take CIF2 to COMCIFS for approval. I would once > > > again urge anybody with any outstanding issues regarding DDLm or dREL > > > to bring those issues up as soon as possible. > > > > > > James. > > > -- > > > 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:
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Updated draft from subgroup discussing encodings
- Index(es):