Discussion List Archives

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

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

This is perhaps irrelevant if James's compromise gains as much traction as it seems poised to do, but

On Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:26 AM, Brian McMahon wrote:
[...]
>In the real world, a need may arise to exchange CIFs constructed in
>non-canonical encodings. ("Canonical" probably means UTF-8 and/or
>UTF-16). Such a need would involve some transcoding strategy.
>
>What is the actual likelihood of that need arising?
>
>I would characterise James's position as "not very, and even less
>if the software written to generate CIFs is constrained to use
>canonical encodings within the standard".
>
>I would characterise the position of the rest of us as "reasonable to
>high, so that we wish to formulate the standard in a way that
>recognises non-canonical encodings and helps to establish or at
>least inform appropriate transcoding strategies".

I was about to deny that as a valid characterization of my position, but after some consideration I realized that it does cover me.  Good wordsmithing.

My divergence from the pack is probably over the mechanism by which I suppose CIFs must be exchanged. I view CIFs constructed via most encodings as inherently unsuitable for exchange, at least if they contain non-ASCII characters.  Hence, the needed transcoding strategy (absent some established agreement otherwise) must be for the originator of the exchange to first transcode into a canonical encoding.  From there springs my continued advocacy for options that in fact provide a canonical encoding.

>There appear to be
>strong disagreements among us, but in fact there's a lot of common
>ground, and a drafting exercise would probably move us towards a
>consensus.
>
>Do you agree that that is a fair assessment?

Yes.

>If so, we can analyse further: what are the implications of mandating
>a canonical encoding or not if judgement (a) is wrong and if judgement
>(b) is wrong? My feeling is that the world will not end - or even
>change very much - in any case; but it could determine whether we
>need to formulate an optimal transcoding strategy now, or can defer
>it to a later date.
>
>However, if anyone thinks this is just another diversion, I'll drop
>this line of approach so as not to slow things down even more.

This may be a useful avenue to pursue, but I suggest we table it pending the response to James's compromise proposal.


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

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.