Discussion List Archives

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

Re: Advice on COMCIFS policy regarding compatibility of CIFsyntaxwith other domains. .

Dear James,

   I am not objecting to Brian's document.  I think we should keep
as much of it as possible for CIF2.  The only problem is that it
is a "semantic" document and your policy according to you and
John B. seems to want to relegate all semantic issues to the
dictionaries.  It is that relegation to which I am objecting.
Most features consist of both syntactic and semantic components,
and I find it much less confusing to deal with a feature in
its entirety than to deal with just the syntax.

   Until this discussion, I had thought the intent of the dictionaries
was to deal with the tag definitions particular to certain domains
and that both the syantax and semantics of CIF was a global concern.
I find the relegation of the semantics of CIF2 to the dictionaries
surprising and recommend against it.  I want to keep Brian's
document a global document.

   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
=====================================================

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, James Hester wrote:

> Dear Herbert,
>
> Please explain why you think that the latest version of the guiding
> principles is at variance with the 'Common Semantic Features' document
> and approach.  For example, what would prevent us from adopting a
> similar CSF document for CIF2?  It would help if you quoted particular
> points from the guidelines in your reply.
>
> James.
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein
> <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>   I would suggest that people review Brian's excellent common
>> semantic features document for CIF 1.1.  I think keeping those
>> sort of semantic decisions couple to the syntax decisions for
>> CIF has worked well, and I do not think the sharp departure
>> now proposed for handling CIF2 will work as well for the
>> reasons I stated previously.  It ain't broke.  Why are
>> we fixing it?  New feautures involve a mix of syntax and
>> semantics depedending on the feature.  I believe we should
>> be focusing on features rather than the bin within which
>> they fit for presentation purposes.
>>
>>   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
>> =====================================================
>>
>
>
> -- 
> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
> _______________________________________________
> comcifs mailing list
> comcifs@iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs
>
_______________________________________________
comcifs mailing list
comcifs@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs

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.