Discussion List Archives

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

Re: Cif dictionary version numbers

I would favor extending the definition to allow for all the
alternate dictionary version number schemes:



 Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
   Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
        Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769


On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Brian McMahon wrote:

> > "Data value is not a correctly formatted number: _dictionary_version"
> >
> > According to ddl_core.dic the _type of _dictionary_version is numb.  1.0
> > and 1.1 are valid numbers but 1.0.1 and 2.3.1 are not, at least by my
> > understanding of the definition of a number in the CIF 1.1 specification.
> > This could be a serious issue if some computer program attempted to
> > compare dictionaries by converting the value of _dictionary_version to a
> > number.
> Oops. That's rather embarrassing.
> > So my question is, should the dictionary versions that do not meet the
> > dictionary specification be changed so that they do? i.e.
> >
> > 1.0.1 -> 1.1
> > 2.3.1 -> 2.4
> I think the three-level "numbering" scheme is useful in indicating the
> approximate level of change in an edition of the dictionaries - a change
> from 1.0.1 to 1.0.2 means that only some very minor changes have taken
> place, and one need not rush to upgrade. 1.1 to 1.2 probably means that new
> data items have been added, and perhaps some adjustment to some of the
> validation ranges. 1.1 to 2.0 probably means that there have been a lot of
> changes, perhaps even to the underlying data model - the documentation
> should be read very carefully. There's also benefit in allowing the
> _dictionary_version to have additional characters - "1.2beta" could be a
> useful way of flagging a preliminary release to developers.
> 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.
> What do others feel?
> Thanks
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> cif-developers mailing list
> cif-developers@iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
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.