Discussion List Archives

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

Re: Cif dictionary version numbers

I agree that three level numbering is useful

> So I would favour leaving the version labelling as now, but changing the
> type of _dictionary_version in any new DDL1 release that results from this
> and other of the recent bug reports.

The only problem with this is that it completely rules out any future 
parsing of version numbers.  Reading three numbers would be plausible, 
but not once free form text such as 'beta' starts being added; and once 
it is a free form text field there is no telling what form of words will 
be used.
The alternative I would prefer would be simply to drop the second point e.g.

1.0.1 -> 1.01
2.3.1 -> 2.31

This still means we get three level numbering, but can also treat the 
values as numbers.  The only restriction is that we can only have nine 
minor (0.1) revisions.
I think that text such as 'beta' can and should be included in the 
_dictionary_name.  There it is more likely to be obvious to users than 
in the version field.


cif-developers mailing list

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.