Discussion List Archives

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

Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders

Dear John,

> Circulating a request for comment on community lists carries an
> implication impending change.   For PDB users this will be viewed
> by many as adding confusion and complexity to a format that is
> already viewed as over complicated.

Isn't the very intention of this effort that there be "impending change"?
Don't those same users have to see a specification of CIF 2 before it 
comes into use?  Will not the "maximally disruptive" approach adopted 
by this group add "confusion and complexity to a format that is already 
viewed as overly complicated" whenever they learn of this?

Surely the sooner we start the necessary educational process and
the sooner we build support infrastructure for what has been made into
an intrinsicly difficult transition, the better.

Regards,
   Herbert
=====================================================
  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 Tue, 1 Dec 2009, John Westbrook wrote:

> Hi James and Herb,
>
> My comments are not directed at the style of organizing a software
> engineering effort, rather my concerns related to standardization
> and managing change from the perspective of an archive.
>
> Circulating a request for comment on community lists carries an
> implication impending change.   For PDB users this will be viewed
> by many as adding confusion and complexity to a format that is
> already viewed as over complicated.
>
> I think that James' suggestion to post this on the cif-developers
> list is perhaps the best path forward.
>
> John
>
> James Hester wrote:
>> Dear all:
>>
>> Let's remember that we are only talking about the syntax specification
>> here, and as such our audience is almost completely restricted to
>> software authors.  I would therefore have thought that the
>> cif-developers list would be a suitable forum to post a syntax draft.
>>
>> The process I had envisioned runs like this:
>>
>> 1. We finalise a syntax specification in this group - I remind you that
>> we only have one or two outstanding issues, both of which could be drawn
>> to a close with a vote fairly soon as we have had enough time to air our
>> opinions;
>>
>> 2. The draft syntax specification is posted on the IUCr website together
>> with an information page describing brief reasons for our choices, and
>> directing people to the archive of our discussions;
>>
>> 3. Feedback is requested from COMCIFS (who will have to approve it) and
>> the cif-developers list (where most of the people directly affected are
>> located), and any other appropriate list
>>
>> 4. We discuss and incorporate this feedback into our final draft, which
>> we submit to COMCIFS for approval.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein
>> <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com <mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear John,
>>
>>       I understand your point.  You are espousing the classic hierarchical
>>     view of software engineering as seen in joint application design and
>>     other
>>     middle-manager-to-middle-manager design protocols.  I am espousing the
>>     Scandinavian method, also called participatory design, in which
>>     implementors deal directly with users.
>>
>>       Both approaches have their passionate adherents.  I suggest the
>>     following compromise to allow us to benefit from the virtues of both
>>     approaches:
>>
>>       1.  Whatever the current state of the design of CIF2 and CIF 1.5, the
>>     essential user externals issues be summarized in a "one-pager" to be
>>     reviewed and approved by this group, hopefully within the next week.
>>
>>       2.  Then James, in the name of this group, forward that document
>>     to the
>>     appropriate managerial level contacts for the stakeholders, asking them
>>     for their thoughts and comments, say by the beginning of the new year.
>>
>>       3.  Then, in response to that feedback, that this group try to have a
>>     revised one-pager vetted both by this group and by any interested
>>     managerial level contacts, say by the beginning of February.
>>
>>       4.  Then, the revised one-pager be posted to the appropriate lists
>>     for a
>>     six-week comment period.
>>
>>     That should then put us in good shape to have something to discuss with
>>     people at the ACA meeting in summer 2010.
>>
>>       Regards,
>>         Herbert
>>
>>     =====================================================
>>      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 <mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>
>>     =====================================================
>>
>>     On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, John Westbrook wrote:
>>
>>     > The wwPDB will provide collective comment on issues of policy with
>>     > respect to its use of CIF.   wwPDB should include the BMRB as an
>>     > organization as well.
>>     >
>>     > Comments to lists regarding changes to CIF or mmCIF need to be vetted
>>     > carefully by all of these groups prior to any public announcements.
>>     > To give the impression that CIF is suddenly changing may be very
>>     > detrimental to the entire CIF/mmCIF enterprise and could well reverse
>>     > the progress in adoption of this format.
>>     >
>>     > Regards,
>>     >
>>     > John
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>>     >> Dear Colleagues,
>>     >>
>>     >>    Before this discussion goes much further on any of its threads, I
>>     >> would suggest agreeing on a list of stakeholders and consulting them
>>     >> on what has been proposed and trying to come up with an external
>>     >> user specification that they understand and agree to.  Some of
>>     >> the stakeholders that come to mind are:
>>     >>
>>     >>    1.  The PDB in Rutgers
>>     >>    2.  The PDB in Europe
>>     >>    3.  The PDB in Japan
>>     >>    4.  People to speak for the Powder diffraction community
>>     >>    5.  People to speak for the NMR community
>>     >>    6.  The IUCr journal operation
>>     >>    7.  CCDC
>>     >>    8.  The writers of the various structure solution packages that
>>     >> write (and in some cases read) CIF files
>>     >>    9.  The writers of visualization programs that read (and in some
>>     >> cases write) CIF files
>>     >>    10.  The synchrotron data collection community.
>>     >>    11.  Service crystallographers
>>     >>    12.  Diffraction equipment vendors
>>     >>
>>     >> I expect I have missed some and hope that others will add to
>>     this list.
>>     >>
>>     >> I would suggest we prepare a summary of the current best
>>     definition of
>>     >> CIF 2 and, if this groups accepts the idea, CIF 1.5, and send it out
>>     >> the lists that cover these stakeholders, starting with the PDB
>>     and CCP4
>>     >> lists, and see what feedback we get.
>>     >>
>>     >> Regards,
>>     >>    Herbert
>>     >>
>>     >> =====================================================
>>     >>   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 <mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>
>>     >> =====================================================
>>     >>
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> ddlm-group mailing list
>>     >> ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>
>>     >> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > ddlm-group mailing list
>>     > ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>
>>     > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>>     >
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     ddlm-group mailing list
>>     ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>
>>     http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> ddlm-group mailing list
> ddlm-group@iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>
_______________________________________________
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.