Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote

Dear James,

   The line folding protocol is in section 26 of

http://www.iucr.org/resources/cif/spec/version1.1/semantics

I tried to get agreement on continuing this use of the backslash and that 
was firmly and explicitly rejected, effectively removing the entire line 
folding protocol, which depends on it.  Even if we restore the use of the 
backslash, there has been a significant change in the termination of a 
text field.  In CIF 1.1, text field can only end with <eol>; followed 
either by whitespace or the end of a file, so the existing line folding 
protocol allows

;\
this is an example of an embedded text field
;\

an embedded text field
;\

;

which is no longer valid under CIF2 because all quoted fields end on the 
first occurrence of their delimiter, and as stated in the new syntax 
document, "CIF2 keywords, data block headers, save frame headers, data 
names, and data values must all be separated from each other by 
whitespace. Whitespace not otherwise part of a CIF2 syntax element is 
significant only for this purpose.

Reasoning: The CIF1 specification relies implicitly on the syntactic 
structure of the language to require whitespace separators between syntax 
elements. The CIF2 syntax no longer implicitly provides whitespace 
separators in some cases (notably, after most types
of data values), therefore the requirement is now made explicit."

So under CIF2, the use of the elide to shield the <eol>; is
explcitly an error.

It would be very nice to have the line folding back, either
in the form of the use of the backslash, or by using the
string concatenation operator.

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
=====================================================

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, James Hester wrote:

> I would be happy to indicate the status of the line folding protocol under
> the CIF2 draft when introducing the CIF2 draft to COMCIFS.  Perhaps you
> could write a few words in reply to this email giving a description of the
> status of the line folding protocol under CIF2, as I'm not sure why
> line-folding and CIF2 are incompatible.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein
> <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
>       Dear James,
>
>        I don't mind if the approval of CIF2 has priority if the debate
>       on that ends before debate on the concatenation operator, but
>       imasmuch as either the concatenation operator or some other
>       replacement for the line folding protocol is necessary before
>       CIF2 can become a full replacement for CIF1, I would suggest
>       that the matter be brought to COMCIFS at the same time
>       and we see what happens.
>
>        I would also like to bring the issue of how we transition
>       imgCIF before COMCIFS.  That is anther area where CIF2 does
>       not yet provide support.
>
>        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
>       =====================================================
> 
> 
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, James Hester wrote:
>
>       My count is 2 in favour, 4 against, with Simon (whose vote
>       doesn't appear to have come in)
>       potentially making that 3 in favour and 4 against.  These
>       are not entirely convincing numbers
>       for either side. However, although the proponents of the
>       concatenation operator are free to
>       address COMCIFS on this question, a replay of this vote
>       within COMCIFS would lead to at least 3
>       opposed and at least one in favour, with Nick's opposition
>       making it (at best) a 4-2 vote
>       against.  So, I suggest that at this point we delay any
>       further consideration of concatenation
>       until COMCIFS has approved CIF2.
>
>       In a subsequent email I will therefore put the current
>       CIF2 spec to a DDLm group vote, and
>       assuming it passes will present it to COMCIFS for final
>       approval.
>       --
>       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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Science Council (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ISC Committee on Data. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

International Science Council Scientific Freedom Policy

The IUCr observes the basic policy of non-discrimination and affirms the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science.

Useful links