Discussion List Archives

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

Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein
<yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>   I am coping with the rapid ebb and flow of what delimiters will be
> used for CIF2 by providing controls for both CIFtbx_4 and CBFlib_9
> to turn on or off sensitivity to (), [] and {} delimiters separately,
> so I can deal with whatever the final decision is by changing the
> defaults, ...

So I guess you have a proof of concept for whatever we decide on.

>   BUT we really do have to settle this.  Ignoring the comma, quote and
> colon issues, Since 2007 we have now gone through use of a of (), [], and
> {} as reserved delimiters, use of just () and {}, and use of just {}.  It
> is time to simply make a firm and final decision.

To be fair, it is only since August this year that there has been any flux.

>   We have dictionaries to write and code to implement.  I have already
> delayed delivery of software to deal with this, and I really don't like
> delaying delivery of software.
>
>   The use of the [] in CIF 1 dictionary category name is well-established.
> I prefer to minimize the impact on handling existing dictionaries in a
> CIF2 context and to stick strictly to {} as the only brackets in the
> set of reserved delimiters and to allow both () and [] in non-delimited
> strings and data names.  So let us have another straw vote:
>
>   Option 1:  {} will be reserved, but [] and () will not be reserved; or
>   Option 2:  {} and [] will be reserved, but () will not be reserved; or
>   Option 3:  {} and () will be reserved, but [] will not be reserved; or
>   Option 4:  {}, () and [] will all be reserved
>
> I suggest preferences voting noting if any are fatal to anyone.
>
> My preferences are in decreasing order:  1 then 3 and 2 then 4, but, as
> long as we settle this for once and for all, I can live with any of them.

Unfortunately your options exclude allowing brackets both inside
datanames/non-delimited strings and as list/table delimiters.  In
light of Nick's email I suggest an additional formulation:

0. Make it possible to detect missing whitespace after datanames and
non-delimited text strings if the following datavalue is a list or
table? (Yes/No)

If "Yes":  which of the above options do you prefer?
If "No": which of the above options would you prefer if the majority
prefer "Yes" as an answer to question 0?

I vote "No" (don't make it possible to detect whitespace) and
preferences same as Herbert (due to already existing square brackets
in datanames).


-- 
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group


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.