Discussion List Archives

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

Re: [ddlm-group] Data-name character restrictions - one last time

The dREL/DDLm documents explicitly use ":" for ranges.

The main reason to forbid negative starting indices is for simplicity
in a python implementation.

At 5:41 PM -0500 12/10/09, Joe Krahn wrote:
>The range notation "1:4" is familiar to Fortran90 programmers. Many
>Fortran77 compilers also supported range notation. But, if ':' is
>disallowed in unquoted strings, it would have to be written as:
>      _type.dimension      ['1:4','1:4']
>Also, why not allow negative indices? It may make sense to allow only 0
>or 1, but why make it a mandatory restriction?
>Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>>  No, the implicit zero comes from the dREL documentation in both the
>>  2007 and 2008 versions.  This is a very serious issue for people with
>>  a Fortran background, and causes many mistakes.  Simply being able
>>  to specify the starting index would solve the problem.
>>  I agree that we need to keep in touch, but I am working from the
>>  dREL/DDLm documentation, and hope you are, too.  What we need to do
>>  is to stop
>>  focusing in stylistic issues and work on getting the documentation to
>>  be clear and unambiguous with more examples, so we do not go another
>>  3+ years without people being aware of such critical issues as the
>>  default starting
>>  index for arrays.
>>  You will find the statement about the default index for arrays in 
>>section 3.4
>>  of dREL_spec_aug08.pdf.  All we need to fix it is to adopt a new tag to
>>  identify the starting index, such as
>>    _type.starting_index
>>  or allow the dimensions of an array to be ranges.  The only problem
>>  with that is that there is a strange python convention which would
>>  suggest that
>>     _type.dimension [1:5]
>>  would be declaring an array of dimension 4, starting at index 1.  To avoid
>>  the confusion that would cause for Fortran programmers, I would suggest
>>  that we write dictionaries with
>>     _type.starting_index [1,1]
>>     _type.dimension      [3,3]
>>  instead of
>>     _type.dimension      [1:4,1:4]
>>  which would be natural in a python world, but not for Fortran programmers.
>>  To make implementation easy, I would not allow negative starting indices.
>>     -- Herbert
>>  At 2:14 PM -0500 12/10/09, David Brown wrote:
>>>  I was not aware that there was a default indexing of arrays.  The
>>>  only place where this arises in DDL1 is in the list of symmetry
>>>  opertations where we originally failed to define a key for the symop
>>>  loop.  But there, as far as I am aware, the assumed indexing always
>>>  starts at 1 for the first item.  This is strictly a fix since CIF1
>>>  specificly states that the order within a loop has no significance.
>>>  Later additions to the dictionary have corrected this oversight by
>>>  adding an explicit key, but it is not yet often used.  Otherwise, in
>>>  DDL1 (and DDL2?) the elements of an array have explicit data names
>  >> that start at 1, not 0.  The assumption that arrays are numbered
>>>from zero must be an imgCIF convention.  It would always be better
>>>  to include explicit indexing to avoid these problems.
>>>  The DDLm dictionaries have methods for constructing arrays from
>>>  their elements, and methods for the reverse process could be added.
>>>  In this case it would not be necessary to decompose (or assemble) an
>>>  array on first resding as the necessary action would be taken as
>>>  soon as the array or its elements are invoked by a method or by a
>>>  list of items to output.
>>>  This raises another concern.  Herbert, if you are writing DDLm
>>>  dictionaries for imgCIF and I am writing them for coreCIF, we need
>>>  to keep in contact to make sure we are not introducing conficting
>>>  conventions.
>>>  David
>>>  Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>>>>  Dear Colleagues,
>>>>     One very neat resolution to this problem would be to allow a
>  >>> list or array-typed CIF2 tag to be referenced in a data file either
>>>>  as a whole or element by element.
>>>>     Thus
>>>>     _a.vec
>>>>  being defined as an array or list in CIF2 would automatically make
>>>>  the tags
>>>>     _a.vec[1]
>>>>     _a.vec[2]
>>>>  ...
>>>>  defined CIF2 tags.  If the array or list were nested, the
>>>>     _a.vec[1][1]
>>>>     _a.vec[1][2]
>>>>  etc. would be valid tags
>>>>     I would propose that this be general and automatic, applying to
>>>>  all tags defined as list or arrays.  In view of past practice in
>>>>  CIF1, there is a slight conflict with respect to the default starting
>>>>  index in dREL versus the common CIF1 practice in indexing arrays
>>>  >from 0, but that can (and should be solved) with explicit specification
>>>>  of a starting index, so we can carry over the tag name usage from
>>>>  CIF1 without confusing people with an index shift.  So, if _a.vec
>>>>  were an array of dimension 5, starting from index 0, _a.vec[0]
>>>>  through _a.vec[4] would be valid, but if the starting index were
>>>>  specified as 1, _a.vec[1] through _a.vec[5] would be valid, matching
>>>>  CIF1 conventions.
>>>>     The aliasing mechanism might have to be extended or clarified to
>>>>  handle the mapping against CIF1 tags in bulk for _a.vec as a whole,
>>>>  but, to me, this has a very intuitive feel.
>>>>     Regards,
>>>>       Herbert
>>>>  At 3:29 PM -0500 12/9/09, John Westbrook wrote:
>>>>>  Hi all -
>>>>>  On the issue of reserved characters in mmCIF/PDBx data items, these
>>>>>  generally have been inherited from the style of items from the core.  The
>>>>>  majority of items in this class are data items related to short
>>>>>  matrices/tensors
>>>>>  and vectors (e.g. items including []).    Virtually all have a 
>>>>>syntax which
>>>>>  could reasonably be interpreted as a programmatic reference. 
>>>>>For instance,
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_matrix[1][1]   0.007738
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_matrix[1][2]   0.000000
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_matrix[1][3]   0.004298
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_matrix[2][1]   0.000000
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_matrix[2][2]   0.016545
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_matrix[2][3]   0.000000
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_matrix[3][1]   0.000000
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_matrix[3][2]   0.000000
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_matrix[3][3]   0.020200
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_vector[1]      0.00000
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_vector[2]      0.00000
>>>>>  _atom_sites.fract_transf_vector[3]      0.00000
>>>>>  Are we close to being able to treat these as legal in the context of
>>>>>  CIF2/DDL+?
>>>>>  I suppose I am asking what will constitute a legal assignment 
>>>>>for an element
>>>>>  of a matrix/array -
>>>>>  Only this -
>>>>>  _a.vec [1,2,3]
>>>>>  or also expanded assignment by element such as -
>>>>>  _a.vec[1]  1
>>>>>  _a.vec[2]  2
>>>>>  _a.vec[3]  3
>>>>>  If the latter is to be considered, then this will solve most of
>>>>>  the data name
>>>>>  issues for our data.
>>>>>  Regards,
>>>>>  John
>>>>>  Joe Krahn wrote:
>>>>>>   In practice, CIF2 parsers should allow CIF1 data names within a CIF2
>  >>>>>  formatted file. The question is whether these files should 
>be allowed as
>>>>>>   valid CIF2, or just for convenience as a non-standard CIF2.
>>>>>>   When CIF files are used as working data files, the restrictions should
>>>>>>   be relaxed. For long-term archival files, it makes sense to be more
>>>>>>   restrictive. I would just make the CIF1 names inaccessible to dREL.
>>>>>>   Alternatively, an implementation could allow CIF1 names only 
>>>>>>on reading,
>>>>>>   and require dictionary alias mappings to CIF2 names.
>>>>>>   One argument in favor of allowing them would be that someone wants to
>>>>>>   convert all data files to CIF2 format, but they want to preserve the
>>>>>>   original data as-is, without alias mapping.
>>>>>>   I think that the current CIF2 syntax makes it possible to use 
>>>>>>CIF1 names
>>>>>>   without any ambiguities. The question is whether they should be
>>>>>>   considered valid CIF2, or just a non-standard version that will be
>  >>>>>  useful for the transitional period.
>>>>>   >
>>>>>>   Joe
>>>>>>   Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>>>>>>>   Personally, I would greatly prefer to allow all data names that do not
>>>>>>>   create a major lexer/parser conflict to appear in a data CIF and
>>>>>>>   only apply the strong restrictions to data names that appear in CIF2
>>>>>>>   dictionaries as defined data names (not as aliases).  -- Herbert
>>>>>>>   At 2:40 PM +0000 12/9/09, Brian McMahon wrote:
>>>>>>>>   I have one remaining niggle that I'd like to revisit before we put
>>>>>>>>   this finally to bed. As has been mentioned a couple of times
>>>>>>>>   recently, restricting the data-name character set does invalidate
>>>>>>>>   syntactically many existing CIF 1 files (e.g.
>>>>>>>>  _refine_ls_shift/esd_max ).
>>>>>>>>   We have discussed strategies for handling this, and I think these
>>>>>>>>   are workable strategies, but will involve investment and 
>>>>>>>>hence expense
>>>>>>>>   in workflow management in CIF archives.
>>>>>>>>   I understand the rationale behind this restriction is to simplify
>>>>>>>>   future processing of data names in areas such as dREL
>>>>>>>>   applications. The question really is whether we're choosing the right
>>>>>>>>   trade-off in making things cleaner at that end of the processing
>>>>>>>>   chain. I would suppose that a dREL or other application 
>>>>>>>>could ingest a
>>>>>>>>   data name with dangerous characters, convert it internally into a
>>>>>>>>   "safe" identifier that's used for all processing, and then 
>>>>>>>>restore the
>>>>>>>>   original form upon output; but writing that intermediate layer of
>>>>>>>>   processing is of course expensive (especially if there aren't readily
>>>>>>>>   available libraries that will do this transparently).
>>>>>>>>   I suspect that some of the original proposed syntactic changes also
>>>>>>>>   had the effect (whether by design or collaterally) of 
>>>>>>>>simplifying i/o,
>>>>>>>>   data structure management, symbol table processing etc., 
>>>>>>>>but those may
>>>>>>>>   have suffered in the subsequent revision exercise we've just been
>>>>>>>>   practising. Given the consensus we are now approaching, 
>>>>>>>>would the code
>>>>>>>>   builders now be prepared to incur the addition expense of handling
>>>>>>>>   "dangerous" data names?
>>>>>>>>   I really don't want to spark off a long discussion on this - if a
>>>>>>>>   quick round of response shows that there's no appetite to allow
>>>>>>>>   the additional punctuation characters in data names, I'll accept that
>>>>>>>>   gracefully.
>>>>>>>>   ***
>>>>>>>>   One last comment while I have the floor, though it is related in part
>>>>>>>>   to the above question. A concern raised in the editorial office was
>>>>>>>>   that there would be circumstances where users didn't know 
>>>>>>>>if they were
>>>>>>>>   dealing with a CIF 1 or 2 ("users" meaning authors, perhaps resorting
>>>>>>>>   to the vi editor - and we're imagining most of them are dealing with
>>>>>>>>   small-molecule/inorganic CIFs). My supposition is that the IUCr
>>>>>>>>   editorial offices would only want to use CIF2 seriously in 
>>>>>>>>   with DDLm dictionaries, and that we would expect the revised core
>  >>>>>>>  dictionaries to use the dot component in data names to signal this
>>>>>>>>   further evolution. So even a superficial glimpse of the middle of a
>>>>>>>>   CIF would make it clear whether it was CIF1 or CIF2.
>>>>>>>>   Does that fit in with how others see this progressing?
>>>>>>>>   Cheers
>>>>>>>>   Brian
>ddlm-group mailing list

  Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
    Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
         Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769

ddlm-group mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Science Council (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ISC Committee on Data. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

International Science Council 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.