[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- From: Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov>
- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:47:51 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <4B1D2158.8040402@mcmaster.ca>
- References: <20091204093823.GA10999@emerald.iucr.org> <4B194B8D.5050806@niehs.nih.gov> <188546.55653.qm@web87008.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4B196FAD.2040706@niehs.nih.gov> <77447.47704.qm@web87009.mail.ird.yahoo.com><4B1D2158.8040402@mcmaster.ca>
Aren't the following in the core dictionary, and need changing? _symmetry_space_group_name_H-M _refine_ls_shift/esd_max _refine_ls_class_[] As I suggested below, CIF2 code should allow CIF1 names, possibly with warnings, and just exclude them from dREL, unless they can be mapped dictionary aliases. Joe David Brown wrote: > Simon, > > I am not sure what changes are needed in CIF1 dictionaries. I would be > interested to know since any changes have to be passed through the > coreCIF Dictionary Maintenance Group that I chair. It is my > understanding that no changes are needed, and if they are they must be > changes that do not invalidate the reading of any of the archive. > > David > > SIMON WESTRIP wrote: >> I understand the name alias approach - what I was trying to highlight is >> the fact that current dictionaries will need to be re-written and this >> in itself might be more of an issue when selling CIF2 than the fact >> that commas >> as list separators could be on the table. >> >> Cheers >> >> Simon >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov> >> *To:* Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries >> <ddlm-group@iucr.org> >> *Sent:* Friday, 4 December, 2009 20:23:09 >> *Subject:* Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes >> >> SIMON WESTRIP wrote: >> > I agree that a "rationale for all of the quotation rule >> > changes" might be welcome - I can imagine that at first glance many >> people >> > will wonder what the """ and ''' are for. >> > >> > I'm not sure that hinting that comma-separated lists >> > are also a possibilty is going to help matters? >> My willingness to support commas is partly because Herbert finds it >> usefule, and has already implemented it. Maybe the comma-delimited >> variant can be useful as a CIF 1.5 transitional form? >> >> > Afterall, when it comes down to it, until there are >> > dictionaries that comply to CIF2, many disciplines >> > that already make use of CIF will find it difficult to >> > adopt CIF2 because their current dictionaries will be invalidated by >> > the restrictions on the dataname character set? >> Name changes are not uncommon, at least for mmCIF. Hopefully, dictionary >> aliases will ease the conversion. It would also help if early CIF2 >> software should probably allow CIF1 names within the CIF2 syntax, with >> warnings, and just exclude them from dREL. >> >> Joe >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > Simon >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > *From:* Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov <mailto:krahn@niehs.nih.gov>> >> > *To:* Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries >> > <ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>> >> > *Sent:* Friday, 4 December, 2009 17:49:01 >> > *Subject:* Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes >> > >> > The summary did not include a rationale for all of the quotation rule >> > changes, which is the area that makes the least sense to me. >> > >> > The section defining the rationale for not allowing lexical characters >> > outside the 7-bit range (the first Reasoning paragraph) might mention >> > that it affords faster parsing by deferring any UTF-8 conversions. >> > >> > I see that the commas were left out of the list syntax. It may be good >> > to put a short paragraph about the alternative comma-delimited syntax, >> > so that other people reviewing the proposal have a chance to comment. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Joe Krahn >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ddlm-group mailing list >> > ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org> >> <mailto: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 >> 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]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (David Brown)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (Brian McMahon)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (Joe Krahn)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (Joe Krahn)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (David Brown)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] List/table recursion limits?
- Next by Date: [ddlm-group] Data names
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- Index(es):