Discussion List Archives

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

Re: Revised statement of policy on CIF

RE: Herbert's comments...

>  In Syd's hierarchy, I would suggest dropping dRel down to the same level
> as DDL, and trying for two levels of metalangauge instead of three.  Two
> should be enough.

Keep in mind that we see dREL as not being a captive of a DDL methods 
attribute, and therefore a potential scripting language in its own right.
That is, it is likely, with the appropriate tool, that dREL could be used 
directly in software much in the same way that ciftbx function calls are 
used now. At this early stage we are trying to keep the dREL development
and the DDL with which it interacts, as independent as possible.


As in the past I too support getting ISO recognition for the STAR/CIF
standard. The main obstacle as I understand it is the time and effort
it takes to achieve that recognition. Apparently this can be very large
indeed, and therefore, I for one, cannot be involved to a significant 
extent. Perhaps there is a volunteer? :)

Cheers, Syd.

 syd@crystal.uwa.edu.au         ,-_|\       Professor Sydney R. Hall 
                               /     \      Director, Crystallography Centre
 Fx:  61(8)9380 1118       --> *_,-._/      Deputy Executive Dean of Science
 Ph:  61(8)9380 2725                v       University of Western Australia
 www.crystal.uwa.edu.au                     Nedlands 6907, AUSTRALIA.