[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
--
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2
- Subject: Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2
- From: James Hester <jamesrhester@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:07:30 +1000
- DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;bh=ev5Es9703r6LZU242fLO0DNwjayouNyBXzG9JMcPsLs=;b=PPswUYlRXixOifNxloPFIISrxHIKfTT5znPeC8ZOCsdClQ4JCBPV3UT3iNv4k6WA/dkD/VQSSbPbK/fWW0qQt/qUV5VxncI72FWqLEvPpujaU+XOeqYjm/2zD7v7nUHh7eEAmkHjltUVZ96gqt9iqcYWav6pl7S4yy/ByWkp7T1F5PHbkXod1YNZuLlAd9Cm1MSqrP1a/ai09SRnjlltEpDA0lV/bVplb1aOkf6w060Sj6VsDaKlnzUFdKfVCa5EMpD4P181nBTTF6OU0COJNv7woydHpGaEjXssQtt8nHpNZmvG7dCF3cZMgk5JtJ4m0byTwn2N0AGgocbpdA/vSA==
- In-Reply-To: <5082d652-448d-2495-6cc7-6e46f91e729a@gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2d4HcnH7PZRC4jYO8KLyNxs4pws_baT7WKi6vRiD2z1ow@mail.gmail.com><MWHPR04MB0512B6E3745834DB2C6C74BCE01B0@MWHPR04MB0512.namprd04.prod.outlook.com><CAM+dB2cGUWSsnR782iRn4aJ3NU7GqNZV3bGQ5yJ8dVxBD2Xvtw@mail.gmail.com><5082d652-448d-2495-6cc7-6e46f91e729a@gmail.com>
Dear Andrius,
you write:We have devised our COD-JSON format for three reasons: (i) to pass
parsed CIF data to scripts in programming languages that do not have CIF
parsers, (ii) to avoid multiple CIF parsing in pipelines (JSON parsing
is somewhat faster than CIF) and (iii) to experiment with CIF data in
document-oriented databases. Applications (i) and (ii) benefit from the
syntactic approach, especially if they output CIF (we would like to have
it as similar to the original as possible). For application (iii)
semantic approach should be sufficient.
For applications (i) and (ii) it depends on what CIF information your target scripts need, so we must in each case determine whether or not the information that is provided by the dictionary definitions would be sufficient. In the particular case that you want to recreate the original file, then syntax is by definition important.
In addition, I believe that CIF validators will need the syntactic
approach as they have to check data types, whether certain data items
can have precisions or be in a loop and so on. However, probably most
CIF validators will analyze data in CIF format, not JSON.
Yes, for this particular application syntactical information is obviously important.
all the best,
James.
_______________________________________________
cif-developers mailing list
cif-developers@iucr.org
http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cif- developers
--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
_______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list cif-developers@iucr.org http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- Draft JSON specification, round 2 (James Hester)
- RE: Draft JSON specification, round 2 (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2 (James Hester)
- Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2 (Andrius Merkys)
- Prev by Date: Re: Treatment of Greek characters in CIF2
- Next by Date: CIF-JSON new draft
- Prev by thread: Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2
- Next by thread: Standard uncertainties (SU) in the DDLm dictionary
- Index(es):