[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]