[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <[email protected]>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:48:21 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <C7297866.124AC%[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]>
Actually, there is a large and growing collection of imgCIF files.
Fortunately, I don't think any of the tags used are illegal under
the CIF2 rules. For them the problem will be the change in the
format of the MIME binaries.
=====================================================
Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
+1-631-244-3035
[email protected]
=====================================================
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, David Brown wrote:
>
>
> Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>
> With the divergence between CIF 1.1 and CIF 2 and the application of the
> aliases, this has now become challenging. We want the software writers to
> handle both CIF 1.1 and CIF 2 documents, but we want users to be
> encouraged to write clean CIF 2 documents, not relying on aliases except
> when necessary.
>
> >From a practical aspect aliases will be with us for a long time for the
> following reasons.
>
> 1. They will be with us for a long time since it will take time for all the
> systems currently producing CIF1 (e.g., SHELX) to convert,
>
> 2. There will be little lncentive for this to occur in the short term
> because the current software is unable to read CIF2.� We should encourage
> people to write as much software in CIF2.0 because this will be able to read
> CIF1 as well (using aliases), we will not be able to persuade them to write
> CIF data files in CIF2.0 until a;; the programs they like to use are able to
> read CIF2.� We may have to settle for a CIF2 -> CIF1 converter for people
> who have programs that may never be converted because their authors are no
> longer around to make the change.
>
> 3. There is a large archive of CIF1s out there (e.g., in associated with
> Actas Cryst. papers) for which there are no plans to convert on the grounds
> that CIF2 programs can by defiition read any archived CIF. I suspect that
> for a while at least Acta will have to make their CIFs available in both
> standards with CIF1 being needed for legacy applications.�
>
> We should recognize that aliases are going to be with us for the long haul
> and in principle indefinitely.� However, a complete conversion may be
> possible with some CIFs such as imgCIF, where there is not yet a significant
> legacy, or where archiving the CIF is not envisaged.
>
> David
>
>
>
_______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list [email protected] http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (Nick Spadaccini)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (David Brown)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- Next by Date: [ddlm-group] What we have resolved so far
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- Index(es):

