Discussion List Archives

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

Re: validating cif_core.dic

  • Subject: Re: validating cif_core.dic
  • From: James Hester <jamesrhester@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:57:21 +1100
  • DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;bh=2JYYLuEgwi1afw5KX8hASDj8ogLov7tW6MWVF1RTzJY=;b=t0Bd3F2RAIKWhLfEvH2hP/YJ2veityzgAHUBOgZI727s9vKRDRIuNbtaAgR32NnRTwT/Ci9Zy9+qiZd+BUlj+dgX8xhEUrCaqlP4NXhQgn55ftYS20dqOXeOJ2AMLWRN5aoJQst+qyVEuuSAja2Yle4NN6PSmF/Vy2XJ8rHM1M1Ym7raSVXcPmcTvAtJCRb+Y4I1FoIr68CikkJSWRCrr3KJvKQMH6EXISbmZylhR0xjlG2RnbskjMUvRG15awIt/v3CZM/2UlsNsTM1/a9NHX4weh0xv4bPvsOYV9kMq6IGUHvIyjHuUN/CuVvz/G3UTMXc2EzX24l8ZGvYH62iRg==
  • In-Reply-To: <CACaHzQWusbL6zdWLcRgHg-6o9T5dW97Car7Snp111ZgF9ihvfw@mail.gmail.com>
  • References: <CACaHzQWusbL6zdWLcRgHg-6o9T5dW97Car7Snp111ZgF9ihvfw@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Marcin and other develpers,

ddl_core_1.4.1.dic is supposed to be used to validate cif_core.dic and your validator has given correct answers.  However, due to other problems with DDL1, and the availability of a new dictionary language (DDLm) we (COMCIFS) decided at the last IUCr meeting to replace the DDL1 dictionaries with DDLm equivalents. These dictionaries should be showing up in the official register this year, indeed the new cif_core has already been approved by COMCIFS.  Note that this dictionary replacement has no implications for data files, i.e. all currently-defined datanames will retain the same meanings.   I had better go over our webpages and make sure that this state of affairs is properly explained.

all the best,
James.


On 26 February 2017 at 11:01, Marcin Wojdyr <wojdyr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,

When testing my CIF parser/validator on cif_core.dic I get 3 errors.
Do I understand correctly that cif_core.dic should validate with
ddl_core_1.4.1.dic?
If yes, the errors are:

_dictionary_version is not "_type numb"

_related_function is not "_list yes" - it's not in list in multiple places.

And in one place cif_core has:
_enumeration_range           :100
i.e. no minimum, while according to the DDL only maximum is optional:
data_enumeration_range
    _type_construct            (_sequence_minimum):((_sequence_maximum)?)
    loop_ _example                -4:10   a:z    B:R   0:

Any thoughts?
Marcin
_______________________________________________
cif-developers mailing list
cif-developers@iucr.org
http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers



--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
_______________________________________________
cif-developers mailing list
cif-developers@iucr.org
http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers

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.

Useful links