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

Re: Broken _related_function in ddl_core.dic

• Subject: Re: Broken _related_function in ddl_core.dic
• From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
• In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik-F9e0xfUIEZTgLrHJ9M9qZ8wSpRIyLLyzcBm2@mail.gmail.com>
• References: <AANLkTik-F9e0xfUIEZTgLrHJ9M9qZ8wSpRIyLLyzcBm2@mail.gmail.com>

Frankly, I would prefer to see every item in a DDL1 dictionary
with "_list" as "both", or the _list attribute dropped completely.

I also agree that versions should be char, not numb.

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

                  +1-631-244-3035
                  yaya@dowling.edu
=====================================================

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Richard Gildea wrote:

> Dear All,
> I don't know if this is the best place to post this message, so please
> direct me to the appropriate place if necessary.
> 
> In the current ddl_core.dic, the definition of the item _related_function
> has the _list item defined as "yes" (i.e. 'can only be declared in a looped
> list') rather than "both" (as is the case for _related_item).  This
> therefore causes much of cif_core.dic to be invalid when validating against
> ddl_core.dic.  It appears that this has been the case since the first
> published version of ddl_core.dic, however I am surprised that an error such
> as this hasn't been spotted beforehand.
> 
> In addition, the _type of _dictionary_version is given as 'numb', however
> unless there is an alternative definition of the allowed 'numb' constructs
> of which I am not aware (I am assuming the numeric rule in the formal BNF
> description of CIF grammar), I do not see how values such as '1.4.1' (the
> current ddl_core.dic version) can be interpreted as type 'numb'.
> 
> It seems unfortunate at best if the DDL1 specification cannot be used either
> to validate itself or most DDL1 dictionaries.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Richard
> 
>

_______________________________________________
cif-developers mailing list
cif-developers@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• References:
  • Broken _related_function in ddl_core.dic (Richard Gildea)

• Prev by Date: Broken _related_function in ddl_core.dic
• Next by Date: Restraints CIF dictionary version 1.0 released
• Prev by thread: Broken _related_function in ddl_core.dic
• Next by thread: _item_related.function_code
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread