This is an archive copy of the IUCr web site dating from 2008. For current content please visit https://www.iucr.org.
[IUCr Home Page] [CIF Home Page] [mmCIF Home Page]

Re: names, confusing

Lynn Ten Eyck (teneyckl@SDSC.EDU)
Tue, 30 Jan 96 18:05:42 -0800 

True . . .

>Well, if we truly were to keep it "simple" we would report names as
>they were in fact used by the authors and impose no transformations
>upon them.  The CIF requirement for family name first, while
>understandably motivated, forces us out of the realm of simplicity.

I think the current CIF practice reported by Brian gives us a set
of definitions that cover most of the cases.  I do claim that we can't
cover all of them if the intent is to get a bullet-proof cross
reference scheme that can be used as an index to other work by the
same or related authors, but we can probably capture enough
information that someone who really cares can dig it out.  Overall,
this is an area where we have to follow the other databases that worry
about this, not try to invent our own wheels.

>If clarification is not provided in the dictionary, then it will
>come the usual route -- by lots of people writing slightly different
>code which results in some messed up database searches which causes
>wasted time and consternation followed by email, meetings and finally
>a detailed description of what was originally intended, which then
>has to be put into a later version of the dictionary.  That process,
>while simple and amusing, seems a poor use of resources.

Yes, there will inevitably be some of this.  No matter what we try to
forsee, we will miss something.  In this case (and the taxonomic case,
which as I indicated previously is a much bigger can of worms) my
suggestion is that we state up front that we can't and won't do it
all, but will try to avoid tripping people.

Lynn Ten Eyck