[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
RE: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility. .
- To: "Discussion list of the IUCr Committee for the Maintenance of the CIF Standard (COMCIFS)" <comcifs@iucr.org>
- Subject: RE: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility. .
- From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@STJUDE.ORG>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:21:54 -0500
- Accept-Language: en-US
- acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-Reply-To: <CAM+dB2dy=iTD_RyYJHHSpCqRrvkBBWqyGuu2Ev9hM+fZgyfJuA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <521F284F.4000203@ibt.lt><CAM+dB2dy=iTD_RyYJHHSpCqRrvkBBWqyGuu2Ev9hM+fZgyfJuA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 9:59 PM, James Hester wrote: > >Reply to Saulius's suggestions of altered syntax. >=================================== [...] >incompatibility with CIF1 is not, in itself, news and is not >sufficient to justify changes to a syntax that has been sweated over >for many years. [...] >It is to avoid such contortions that we agreed to allow >incompatibility between CIF1 and CIF2. > >We need to avoid any further major syntax changes in CIF2. Closing >the book on syntax changes results in a precise understanding of >the differences between CIF1 and CIF2, so we can meaningfully explore >managing CIF1-CIF2 transitions in alternative ways, e.g. through >documentation and policy. The fundamental question Saulius raises is whether a new, backwards-incompatible version of CIF is relevant or desirable. Are the costs of dropping backwards compatibility too high for the benefits we hope to gain? From a higher perspective, those costs may include some or all of the following: - Loss of developer good will - Lack of community acceptance - Technical issues at various levels arising from confusing one format with the other - User confusion As James observed, COMCIFS and the DDLm-WG's position has been that those potential costs and any others are indeed worth the benefits, so the threshold issue here is whether Saulius has given us sufficient reason to revisit *that* judgment. I take James's and Herbert's responses to Saulius's proposal as "no" answers to that question. Myself, I am undecided, though any way around I am not eager to reopen the syntax for changes. Supposing that we proceed with backward-incompatible CIF 2, as appears to be the momentum, perhaps we should consider ways to reduce the above costs / risks. One of the main approaches that occur to me is to take all reasonable steps to position CIF 2 as an improved *alternative* to CIF 1 (as James describes it to be), as opposed to an advancement of it. This would be mostly a promotion and labeling effort. Steps along that path might include - relabeling the "Changes" document and the language therein to replace "changes" with "differences", - making sure to promote CIF 2 as an alternative rather than an evolutionary development when we talk about it with colleagues and in publications, - emphasizing that CIF1 and CIF2 are expected to coexist for an indeterminate time, and - promoting a different filename convention for CIF 2 files, such as extension ".cif2" instead of plain ".cif". Does it make sense to do something like that? John -- John C. Bollinger, Ph.D. Computing and X-Ray Scientist Department of Structural Biology St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer Consultation Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/consultationdisclaimer _______________________________________________ comcifs mailing list comcifs@iucr.org http://mailman.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility. . (Brian Toby)
- Re: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility. . (=?windows-1252?Q?Saulius_Gra=9Eulis?=)
- Re: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility. . (yayahjb)
- References:
- CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.x compatibility (=?windows-1252?Q?Saulius_Gra=9Eulis?=)
- Re: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility
- Next by Date: Re: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility. .
- Prev by thread: Re: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility
- Next by thread: Re: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility. .
- Index(es):