[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Question about DDLm]
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Question about DDLm]
- From: "James Hester" <jamesrhester@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:01:18 +1000
- In-Reply-To: <480E070F.8030105@mcmaster.ca>
- References: <480E070F.8030105@mcmaster.ca>
In response to David's comments I have a few small observations: > COMMENTS BY DAVID BROWN > > If I understand your suggestion, my scheme would be replaced by the > following > > > 1. Read in DDLm. In fact, since the program is specific for a particular > version of the DDLm there is no reason why DDLm should not be incorporated > into the program when it is compiled. Any change in the DDL requires > reprogramming anyway. It is conceivable that a DDLm dictionary update could make machine-readable changes without requiring human intervention (for example, adding a method to derive _import.if_dupl from _import_list.id), so in the most general case it is reasonable to read it in rather than hard code it. For DDL1 and DDL2 the DDL dictionary could be hardwired (which I think means that the programmer referred to the DDL dictionary specification when writing the program). > 2. The CIF is read in. In addition to what is currently in the DDLm, > there would also be the definition of an item _audit_dictionary that the > program would expect to find in the CIF (rather than the CIF dictionary). > This item, stored in the CIF, would be an image of the top domain dictionary > complete with the necessary import statements. The CIF is read, the > _audit_dictionary is extracted and stored as the initial state of the domain > dictionary. This is indeed what I intended, although I think it would be sufficient for this item to give the URI of the dictionary rather than contain the dictionary itself. External programs can check their local dictionaries for one with the same URI before fetching. > 3. The domain dictionary is expanded using the import statements found in > this inital state.. Yes > 4. The expanded domain dictionary is use to interpret the the remaining > items in the CIF. Yes > A couple of points here. The user may have the lower level dictionries > stored locally and may be working off-line. The program would need to be > able to find local copies of the dictionaries. The user may also wish to > import additional dictionaries in order to calculate properties that are not > included in the virtual dictionary defined in the CIF. I assume these > features could be added as options in the program. No problem doing this. -- T +61 (02) 9717 9907 F +61 (02) 9717 3145 M +61 (04) 0249 4148 _______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list cif-developers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [Fwd: Re: Question about DDLm] (David Brown)
- Prev by Date: [Fwd: Re: Question about DDLm]
- Next by Date: Self-described CIF proposal
- Prev by thread: [Fwd: Re: Question about DDLm]
- Next by thread: The draft DDLm specifications are ready for comment
- Index(es):