Discussion List Archives

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

(5) Procedural refinement

Dear Colleagues

A4.3 (see below for explanation and discussion of code)
-------------------------------------------------------

It is proposed that our discussions on the one/many file structure of the
CIF dictionaries may have reached the stage of a consensual agreement: that
separate applications dictionaries be maintained for the foreseeable future,
but in a way compatible with their eventual merging into a single file if
this should ever become preferable.

A4.4 Enumeration values: abbreviations
--------------------------------------

It is also suggested that we are in agreement over formalising 'c' as a
synonym for 'calc' in the enumeration of _atom_site_calc_flag, and 'y'/'n'
for 'yes'/'no' in the *_publ_flag items, these extra values to appear in
the _enumeration lists at the appropriate places in the next version of the
Core Dictionary.

D5.1 Procedural matters
-----------------------

David has suggested a way of indexing discussion items based on their first
appearance in a communique from Chester, and a way to classify active or
resolved matters. Complaints or counter-proposals should be aired within the
month (see below!).

D>    I think that we are off to a good start.  We have an excellent
D> secretary who manages to put his finger on key problems and usually
D> suggest a way to lead us out of these problems.
D> 
D>    I think it is time to suggest some refinements to our procedures as
D> indicated by the query about how and when we get to vote.  Much of our
D> business will be done by consensus and I would like to suggest that the
D> first item on Brian's messages should be a statement of those items on
D> which he thinks a consensus has been reached.  There should be a waiting
D> period during which any member of the committee can complain that s/he
D> does not agree and the matter should be reopened.  I would propose that
D> the period should be a month to allow for people being away from their
D> e-mail for conferences, holidays, etc.  At the end of the month Brian
D> could formally announce that the consensus has been adopted.  This need
D> not prevent us in the meantime from proceeding on the basis of the consensus.
D> 
D>    Where a matter requires resolution and no consensus is in sight, I will
D> ask Brian to call a vote.  The details of how that is to be done we can
D> work out when a vote is needed.
D> 
D>    To simplify back reference to discussions I propose that we adopt a
D> number system for Brian's messages so that all points can be referred to
D> by the message in which they appeared and the point number within that
D> message.  Since the last message that he sent (30 Sept) is the fourth (1 =
D> 9.15, 2 = 9.21, 3 = 9.27, 4 = 9.30 unless I have missed one), the item on
D> restraints would be 4.1.  I would further suggest a letter prefix, A for
D> matters on which we Agree (consensus) and D for matters that are currently
D> under discussion.  Therefore the full label for the restraints item would
D> be D4.1.  I don't want to complicate life with a lot of complex and
D> unnecessary labelling, but, in view of the complexity of our task, and the
D> fact that Brian's excellent summaries are worth keeping as a record of our
D> deliberations, and hence as the minutes of this never-ending comcif
D> meeting, a method of referring back to matters of agreement and matters of
D> discussion will be very valuable.

Matters of substance
--------------------

D> D4.2 _intro section.  As usual, Brian has come up with an excellent
D> solution that seems to solve all the problems and I suggest we accept it. 
D> I am not sure that I understand his concern about the identical names.  If
D> this is a problem couldn't the _name be the same as what is on the line
D> before, or am I missing something?  What is a data block name?  Do we need
D> some defintions of terms?  I do not see this term in the DDL dictionary.
D> 
D> Re Syd's (a)con.  Would it not be possible to update the cross referencing
D> by computer?  All that is needed is to look for the current items in the
D> core dictionary that belong to the reuqired catagory.  Such an update run
D> could be carried out as each new version of a dictionary is released.

D> D4.3 How many files:  We seem to be agreed on this.  Could this be put out
D> as a consensus item (e.g. A5.1)?  I have a suggestion:  would it be
D> possible or useful to have, at the head of each file (or data block) a
D> listing of the dictionaries that are used in the file?  In this way, the
D> accessing program would automatically know which dictionaries it needed to
D> load.  The version numbers should also be included to warn a program that
D> it did not, perhaps, have access to the version that was required.

I suggest that the original discussion numbering be retained, but the 'D' flag
be changed to 'A' to indicate change of status - hence A4.3 (as at head of
this message).

D> D4.4 abbreviations:  Perhaps we have a consensus on this item

D> D4.5 Paula's point is well taken.  We should encourage people to stick to
D> the exact definitions.  If they wish to depart in either writing or
D> reading a file, they must accept the consequences.
D> 
D> David

Brian