[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- Subject: Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- From: Marcin Wojdyr <wojdyr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 11:41:50 +0100
- 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:content-transfer-encoding;bh=19ygEshf5SmCJ/F2IAq1283SlZ9r33XkEk7MIrQjNME=;b=ZLF5VT7fxz0/WbkFZblYQGB6mylkaSxP3qv+FOInkPac5wwbXYPCbL5r+p2NFjoiJzf2DvZsdC/gXnXvRn/7lRv3tuWDh+3hZ1s5RVvqnZcWWoBRM9Qzkr71lAOcoT2Qi2cyrRLDJOPuVZQSWh+GoydzrSJ0GpXC5WZhlTzqAjNzzacqkW/cG8HYMpBUfsGZRpZHU8fX+8m3Gr5d322dHsnMw6iQmDxUEjQXX1nP9SwygJxQN/1A5ROvmZ07fv5YruFnE7n032/OuPG2lck3qD+yGtfZlwSfV5BL93uFcXZBS9m+Q6cywKg1VSKRLNUg8WpMTA1niMcFHBqLR7PT7w==
- In-Reply-To: <MWHPR04MB05120B2E2061754ABEBED31AE0EE0@MWHPR04MB0512.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2cwoCG6LhPUePRup_hQtM9mXqwL4tULTPf-WGwJGtKrOA@mail.gmail.com><MWHPR04MB051220BFF5C7093CD86702CCE0EE0@MWHPR04MB0512.namprd04.prod.outlook.com><CAF_YUvW=i0XjfzmgA=m03a=X4Y03+FfH8_TAZ2dNPVAhCmuy5w@mail.gmail.com><MWHPR04MB0512E4FA07327A5E9103106CE0EE0@MWHPR04MB0512.namprd04.prod.outlook.com><CACaHzQVez_WUma3z2mAXYroiJtEDtxaUAS-n0Noz-R=nPBTF+w@mail.gmail.com><MWHPR04MB05120B2E2061754ABEBED31AE0EE0@MWHPR04MB0512.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
On 8 May 2017 at 21:47, Bollinger, John C <John.Bollinger@stjude.org> wrote: > Interpreting that as a backward step depends on asserting some kind of inherent significance to whether an item or category is presented looped. There isn't any. The important characteristic is not the *presentation* of the category but its *multiplicity* and key structure. Well, "_list no" guarantees multiplicity 1. I cannot see anothermultiplicity control in DDL1/2.But if DDL2 was designed to be like RDMB schema then unlimited numberof entries in block indeed fits this design. Regarding "loop tags": the original motivation was to keep track whichcolumns are in the same loop, so that JSON can be converted back tovalid CIF without knowing the context. Both: loop_ _x _y 1 2 3 4 and: loop_ _x 1 3loop_ _y 2 4 will have the same JSON representation, but a dictionary may allowonly one of the two.This is not important for mmCIF, though, as it can be inferred fromthe naming convention. Marcin_______________________________________________cif-developers mailing listcif-developers@iucr.orghttp://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Bollinger, John C)
- References:
- CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (James Hester)
- RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Robert Hanson)
- RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Marcin Wojdyr)
- RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08 (Bollinger, John C)
- Prev by Date: Re: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- Next by Date: RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- Prev by thread: RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- Next by thread: RE: CIF-JSON draft 2017-05-08
- Index(es):