Discussion List Archives

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

Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up

4, 3, 2, 1, 5

Cheers

Simon


From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
To: Group for discussing encoding and content validation schemes for CIF2 <cif2-encoding@iucr.org>
Sent: Friday, 24 September, 2010 7:53:29
Subject: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up

Hi Simon: could you please give a list of options in order of preference?

Thanks,
James.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:13 AM, SIMON WESTRIP
<simonwestrip@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Faced with the options:
>
> 1. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII' recently
> posted here and to COMCIFS.
> 2. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII', together
> with Brian's *recommendations*
> 3. UTF8-only as in the original draft
> 4. UTF8 + UTF16
> 5. UTF8, UTF16 + "local"
>
> I have to vote for (4).
>
> When it comes down to it, I believe that the specification of a 'standard'
> should not be based on uncertainty,
> and as 'any encoding' presents uncertainty, it should not be in the
> standard.
>
> I might be accused of changing my position (I have recently expressed
> support for flexibilty and even a qualified
> acceptance of the 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII'), but
> part of the value of these discussions
> is to question your own views in the light of other's perspectives. Indeed,
> I have found these discussions
> extremely informative and am now in a far better position to handle the
> realities of introducing non-ASCII CIFs,
> whatever the final COMCIFS decision.
>
> Cheers
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@STJUDE.ORG>
> To: Group for discussing encoding and content validation schemes for CIF2
> <cif2-encoding@iucr.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 September, 2010 15:02:25
> Subject: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
>
> On Thursday, September 23, 2010 5:46 AM, SIMON WESTRIP wrote:
>
>>1. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII' recently
>> posted here and to COMCIFS.
>>2. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII', together
>> with Brian's *recommendations*
>>3. UTF8-only as in the original draft
>>4. UTF8 + UTF16
>>5. UTF8, UTF16 + "local"
>>
>>These can be broken down to:
>>
>>'any encoding' (1, 2, and 5)
>>
>>'specified encoding' (3 and 4)
>>
>>Note I put 5 in the 'any encoding' category as I think 'local' could be
>> interpretted as any encoding.
>
> I agree that 'local' could be interpreted as "any encoding", but I choose to
> view it as "context-dependent".  Thus a file that is CIF-conformant on one
> computer might not be CIF-conformant on another.  Some will find that
> unsatisfactory.  In my view, however, it is the best interpretation of
> CIF1's provisions; its purpose is thus to ensure that *all* well-formed CIF1
> files are also well-formed CIF2 files (a context-dependent question).  Lest
> I appear to overstate the case, I acknowledge that the UTF8-only and UTF-8 +
> UTF-16 proposals would have the result that a large majority of well-formed
> CIF1 files are also well-formed CIF2 files.  The variations of Herb’s
> proposal probably also make all well-formed CIF1 files well-formed CIF2
> files, but I disfavor them on different grounds (mostly that they are too
> open to differing interpretations).
>
> [...]
>
>>In either case, a degree of work will be required to accommodate user
>> practice and the legacy of CIF1.
>
> I think the entire question reduces to which accommodations for the CIF1
> legacy are assured by CIF2 vs. which will constitute non-standard
> extensions.  I don’t think that individual responses, from Chester for
> example, are likely to depend much on which option is adopted, but I do
> think the overall consistency of responses will be affected.  Thus I favor
> precision of the specification and coverage of the likely uses, in hope of
> achieving the greatest consistency of response.
>
> I doubt this has swayed anyone's opinion, so please consider it an advance
> explanation for my upcoming vote (inasmuch as I rely on James's previous
> assurance that voting rights in this context are not restricted to COMCIFS
> members).
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> John
> --
> John C. Bollinger, Ph.D.
> Department of Structural Biology
> St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
>
>
> Email Disclaimer:  www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
> _______________________________________________
> cif2-encoding mailing list
> cif2-encoding@iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding
>
> _______________________________________________
> cif2-encoding mailing list
> cif2-encoding@iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding
>
>



--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
_______________________________________________
cif2-encoding mailing list
cif2-encoding@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding
_______________________________________________
cif2-encoding mailing list
cif2-encoding@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Council for Science (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ICSU Committee on Data. Member of ICSTI, the International Council for Scientific and Technical Information. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

ICSU 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.