[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 <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:48:21 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <4B0429F3.4030000@mcmaster.ca>
- References: <C7297866.124AC%nick@csse.uwa.edu.au><alpine.BSF.2.00.0911180710100.27337@epsilon.pair.com><4B0429F3.4030000@mcmaster.ca>
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 yaya@dowling.edu ===================================================== 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 ddlm-group@iucr.org 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):