[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- Subject: RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 20:47:10 +0000
- Accept-Language: en-US
- authentication-results: iucr.org; dkim=none (message not signed)header.d=none;iucr.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=STJUDE.ORG;
- DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=SJCRH.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-stjude-org;h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;bh=fpz/zkaiMoXJwdB9pMqdl/Fo35I1CsQi0ffBDyLb9x0=;b=AxgOs+HtK43sZQw4n2xuG7cTt86pRnIoq1Yzjlkni2dQ753VGyULWKUNTPjYLFmHdfU3X7IiH5ACYBiVUkm/fzsf/80bitmPSHrgJiJaDPwLm43/NihmQR7qAgUXbNCHCriQPBFcZvNIEaBuCnQB+5jPc2zEkPVv/sY8Qd1oRWY=
- In-Reply-To: <CACaHzQVez_WUma3z2mAXYroiJtEDtxaUAS-n0Noz-R=nPBTF+w@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2cwoCG6LhPUePRup_hQtM9mXqwL4tULTPf-WGwJGtKrOA@mail.gmail.com><MWHPR04MB051220BFF5C7093CD86702CCE0EE0@MWHPR04MB0512.namprd04.prod.outlook.com><CAF_YUvW=i0XjfzmgA=m03a=X4Y03+FfH8_TAZ2dNPVAhCmuy5w@mail.gmail.com><MWHPR04MB0512E4FA07327A5E9103106CE0EE0@MWHPR04MB0512.namprd04.prod.outlook.com><CACaHzQVez_WUma3z2mAXYroiJtEDtxaUAS-n0Noz-R=nPBTF+w@mail.gmail.com>
- spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
On Monday, May 08, 2017 2:29 PM, Marcin Wojdyr wrote: >> The other issue is indeed the one you describe, that CIF overall does >> not draw an inherent distinction between unlooped items and items >> presented in a single-packet loop. The mmCIF and other DDL2 >> dictionaries in fact explicitly disclaim any semantic distinction >> between those alternatives > >So DDL2 cannot ensure that, for example, _entry.id is a string, not a list of strings? >I didn't realize that. It looks to me as a step back from DDL1 which can define _list yes/no/both. You understand correctly: DDL2 does not require _entry.id values to be presented unlooped when, as is usual, that item takes only one value in a given data block. The same applies to all other items, on a category-by-category basis. From a DDL2 perspective, categories are intentionally analogous to relational tables, so it doesn't make any sense to forbid certain ones to be presented in loop form. I am uncertain why DDL2 didn't simply insist that all data be presented looped (which is effectively what I am proposing CIF-JSON should do), but with it having allowed unlooped presentation at all, I guess it seemed needless make a distinguishing feature of whether categories could be presented unlooped. Interpreting that as a backward step depends on asserting some kind of inherent significance to whether an item or category is presented looped. There isn't any. The important characteristic is not the *presentation* of the category but its *multiplicity* and key structure. Anyway, that is all water under the bridge. The fact is that whether a given CIF item is presented in a loop or not simply has no inherent meaning. It may be that there is a reason to preserve that strictly-syntactic distinction in CIF-JSON, but it is not worth preserving purely for its own sake. John ________________________________ Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer Consultation Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/consultationdisclaimer _______________________________________________cif-developers mailing listcif-developers@iucr.orghttp://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Marcin Wojdyr)
- References:
- CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (James Hester)
- RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Robert Hanson)
- RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Marcin Wojdyr)
- Prev by Date: Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- Next by Date: Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- Prev by thread: Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- Next by thread: Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- Index(es):