[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
James.
--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Latest summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:32:20 +1100
- In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003010708340.54010@epsilon.pair.com>
- References: <20100301103520.GA25391@emerald.iucr.org><alpine.BSF.2.00.1003010708340.54010@epsilon.pair.com>
James.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
While there may be refinements, corrections and additions to this
document, I believe it fairly represents the major decisions made over the
past year, and suggest we approve it as is, ask the community for comments
over a limited period of time, and move forward with implementation
promptly.
-=- 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 Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Brian McMahon wrote:
> With apologies to Nick for the delay, I have now posted the latest
> draft of the revised CIF specification change document (dated 18 February
> 2010) at
> http://www.iucr.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/40775/syntaxchangesproposed20100218.pdf
>
> Nick has drawn my attention to the approach taken in this draft that
> many of the restrictions required to CIF2 data files and names that
> have been previously discussed on this list are a requirement of the
> DDLm application of CIF2.
>
> Hence this document is liberal with respect to what you can have. It
> allows for a family of CIF2 applications that imposes minimal name
> restrictions, *but such applications cannot be handled in a DDLm, dREL
> framework*.
>
> The implication is that if, for example, IUCr journals or other
> stakeholders wished to take full advantage of DDLm/dREL (which, after
> all, is the primary motivation for this line of development), they
> would impose the additional necessary naming restrictions to ensure
> that only DDLm/dREL-compliant CIFs were handled in their normal
> workflow.
>
> Regards
> Brian
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Brian McMahon tel: +44 1244 342878
> Research and Development Officer fax: +44 1244 314888
> International Union of Crystallography e-mail: bm@iucr.org
> 5 Abbey Square, Chester CH1 2HU, England
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
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
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Latest summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (Brian McMahon)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Latest summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- Index(es):