Discussion List Archives

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

Re: Minutes - Action item (1) merging dictionaries

  • To: Multiple recipients of list <comcifs-l@iucr.org>
  • Subject: Re: Minutes - Action item (1) merging dictionaries
  • From: Brian McMahon <bm@iucr.org>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:01:19 GMT
Dear Gotzon 

> I have only a question about the "merging dictionaries" part. It is essential
> when creating a virtual dictionary that validates a given CIF the order in
> which the (real) dictionaries or fragments are concatenated and the form in 
> which name collisions are resolved. However although each CIF would include 
> the pointers to those dictionaries which should be used to validate it, there
> is no way of indicating how these dictionaries have to be concatenated. In the
> examples, dictionaries are merged and data files are validated by external 
> programs (cifdiccreate and dictcheck) that require some human intervention. 
> However validation of data files through virtual dictionaries could be an 
> automated task and therefore at least the mode of solving name collisions
> should appear also within the data file (assuming, for instance, APPEND for
> the dictionaries listed in the _audit_conform_ loop). Should some appropriate
> items be included in the core?
> After clarifying this point I would approve the document.

I confess that I hadn't really thought of specifying a virtual dictionary
for validation from within the CIF. I saw AUDIT_CONFORM as a category
whose main purpose was to list the public "standard" dictionaries used as 
a reference when the CIF was built. The freedom to layer other dictionary
fragments was designed to allow validation against other local criteria, and
so it made sense to make this a process driven by the validator. But I guess
that in principle the protocol should permit the CIF to carry an audit trail
of conformance against a specific virtual dictionary (which an end-validator
may over-ride if he wishes to impose local criteria). The recipe for that
virtual dictionary would indeed be carried in the AUDIT_CONFORM category. As
well as the method of overlay, you would need to specify the order in which the
dictionaries were loaded.

What do others think? If there is a consensus that such a facility is
desirable, I'll think about suitable data names. But if people are lukewarm,
we could defer defining new data names until a real need was demonstrated.

Best wishes

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.