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

DDLm, dREL, images and NeXus

Dear Colleagues,

   This is a distillation of an email conversation James Hester and I
have been having since the Osaka meeting.  We both feel that it
would be helpful if others were to join in and express their views.
We have been discussing the interaction among DDLm, dREL, images and
NeXus.  We agree on most points, and disagree on a few, and hope,
by opening up the discussion, to arrive at a consensus.

   What is driving this discussion is a need to understand how best to
manage image data in the context of both imgCIF and NeXus, and to do
so in a way that is consistent with the recent adoption of DDLm as
the target framework for new work on CIF dictionaries.

   It must be clearly understood that it is highly unlikely that a
single standard will ever be adopted for crystallographic diffraction
images, much less for the broader context of pixel-based data in
structural biology.  The best we can hope for right now is to have
some number of clearly defined image data frameworks, and agreed
algorithms for conversion among them.  There are many frameworks
to consider, but two that are very close to achieving the goal of becoming
inter-operable in the immediate future are imgCIF and NeXus.  What is
missing is a formal language within which to specify how to move between
them.

   We could, of course, just come up with a verbal description of how
to move between imgCIF and NeXus and a couple of example conversion
programs written ad hoc in whatever language might come to mind.  However,
the effort being expended on dREL, the supporting language for DDLm,
suggests the possibility of building on dREL as a base to do this job
by extending dREL to have the capability of working with NeXus (dREL
is already capable of dealing with CIF).  James has made the counter
proposal of leaving dREL as just a CIF-specific language and keeping
the CIF-NeXus conversion algorithm specification as a matter for a
different language and/or API.  James has also suggested the further
step of stripping out the built-in functions from dREL and dealing with
just a very stable dREL language specification in one instance and a
perhaps evolving API (list of builtin functions available in dREL) on the
other:

"My comment at this stage would be that defining a coupling mechanism
between CIF and a given language is not a large task, due to the
simplicity of the CIF syntax, whereas adding lots of stuff to dREL
would be a serious task and has some important downsides (loss of
simplicity being an important one). Apropros the
simplicity of the coupling mechanism, I (predictably) quite like my
Python model of a CIF file as a hash table of CIF data block objects
indexed by datablock name, and the datablock objects are themselves
hash tables of strings/lists of strings indexed by dataname.  This
model would appear to translate pretty easily into most other
languages.  What then remains is some syntactic sugar (the use of
square brackets to do key-based lookup is nice in dREL) which can be
replaced in another language by a few standard methods."

There was a lot more to the discussion, but let us try to settle a
direction:

Should we be trying to extend dREL to support more than just CIF,
specifically NeXus, making something we might call dREL++, or should the 
language for this broader task be something distinct from dREL with a 
distinct name.  In practice, in either case, I suspect all of this will be
built on a python base, or something similar, as James suggests, but
names do matter,

Comments please.

Regards,
   Herbert

=====================================================
  Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
    Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
         Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769

                  +1-631-244-3035
                  yaya@dowling.edu
=====================================================
_______________________________________________
comcifs mailing list
comcifs@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs

Reply to: [list | sender only]