Discussion List Archives

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

RE: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility. .


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]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Science Council (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ISC Committee on Data. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

International Science Council 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.

Useful links