[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider
- To: ddlm-group@iucr.org
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider
- From: "john.westbrook@rcsb.org" <john.westbrook@rcsb.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:07:24 -0400
- DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;d=rcsb-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;bh=GI+Tmle/N1UUglUDzjSQpi/TQAVzv9ifzMmc6jTPwc8=;b=xLxS26icX8hgvnHaXuKoN88tHykmQ7v1XMFWRF/vWu78xmPxf4ajCBhjgbfGbb+lhJJomkR8+X1AKHEW0OsKXBpmNZt/ivj+98aWzidpUFu+IziRi/SXKeaZDXy0IweVdwr5tzNVVIrPsXmEMpLtlfYJXgURhqmTIh1BGDqvuFigsua/ab5TSWJZLzbO86SiV7Zx8ZtBwcc7Z/JdwyhMar5fklozGH8kbplBGt0e910oMJlfwk5dy5amOhflAkyM1yVQqnXT0ow1qvOKLoUaAdMVsjHOFWsS3dMuRnHEOaPF6J2eOdb8TkqC3ZLxA3mOiQHoVudZ0qA2l04t2t0sAw==
- In-Reply-To: <CAM+dB2c5mP=4azt=cgbnoNrtdYdqkeRZ+mQ7Bemg9BSEmdj-xw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2cQ3c3HSOBiyH=F4Bm55ceZmL4g4KrTjHCcTHTsmYn3cw@mail.gmail.com><BY2PR0401MB09365F9E49DBB602C55D875DE0400@BY2PR0401MB0936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com><CAM+dB2cs39OpQxBycNyPi3O-Z0j1X4_dhV0mzVTGiCC9C92-ag@mail.gmail.com><BY2PR0401MB0936EF535A40EFC8C996C030E0460@BY2PR0401MB0936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com><CAM+dB2d4TTRFiHsVyi9MdZNrnp7XLHx0bDCVtJeEbx3r90A0eQ@mail.gmail.com><CABcsX27-LDD6jV_FGPLvy1hV6MXZ7Zr9Rgpmhd3gua_ziyo8og@mail.gmail.com><CAM+dB2dgTBvYHE7mMPFD+dJk27mxjqO1dL2h9TrZ612kjkzRXw@mail.gmail.com><BY2PR0401MB0936BF501AA3A01CB3882D45E05C0@BY2PR0401MB0936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com><CAM+dB2c5mP=4azt=cgbnoNrtdYdqkeRZ+mQ7Bemg9BSEmdj-xw@mail.gmail.com>
This is very close to what Herbert has described with his usage of implicit-manadatory where thedefault value provides a placeholder for the common usage and only exceptional cases requirean material change. Regards, John On 6/7/16 9:53 AM, James Hester wrote:> Hi John: absolutely you are right. I think the best way forward is to introduce a single new "compulsory" dataname, with a name like> "_audit.schema" that would be used to distinguish different uses of the same datanames, and with a default value corresponding to> current usage. Has this been tried before? I don't know.>> On 7 June 2016 at 04:22, Bollinger, John C <John.Bollinger@stjude.org <mailto:John.Bollinger@stjude.org>> wrote:>> Dear all,>> Comments below:>> On Sunday, June 05, 2016 11:58 PM, James Hester wrote:>> > [...] The real issue is a live one even for a straight relational database, i.e. if you add a key column to a table, how do> you tell all the applications using that table to pay attention to the value of the new key?> >> > [...] No harm arises for legacy software dealing with legacy files, or future software dealing with any file. There is> potential harm for legacy CIF-reading software dealing with new-style files. This is something we have to face and find a> solution for.> >> > [...]Unfortunately my original proposal does introduce further equivalent datanames, which I think must be avoided [...]. Our> best hope is therefore likely to be something very similar to John B's proposal, which is really a description of what you do in> imgCIF.>> I don't see how there can be a solution that simultaneously satisfies all the criteria that have been offered. If we refuse to> permit existing data names to be used in ways that existing software might not anticipate, and we refuse to introduce new data> names for alternative uses of the same entities, then for entities we have already defined, we are forever stuck with uses that> can be accommodated by their original definitions. If we're not satisfied with that outcome then the only way I see forward is> to reject one of the criteria.>>> John>>> ________________________________>> Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer <http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer>> Consultation Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/consultationdisclaimer <http://www.stjude.org/consultationdisclaimer>> _______________________________________________> ddlm-group mailing list> ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>> http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/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://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group> -- John Westbrook, Ph.D.RCSB, Protein Data BankRutgers, The State University of New JerseyDepartment of Chemistry and Chemical Biology174 Frelinghuysen RdPiscataway, NJ 08854-8087e-mail: john.westbrook@rcsb.orgPh: (848) 445-4290 Fax: (732) 445-4320_______________________________________________ddlm-group mailing listddlm-group@iucr.orghttp://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm"Set" category: please consider (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider
- Next by thread: [ddlm-group] Suggested clarification to DDLm attribute_import_details.mode
- Index(es):