[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Finalizing DDLm
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Finalizing DDLm
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:37:50 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <4B990DA6.9020006@mcmaster.ca>
- References: <4B990DA6.9020006@mcmaster.ca>
I would favor treating a looped presentation of a single row of items as valid in all cases, and treating the presentation as individual tags and value as equally valid and equivalent. I also like David's suggestion of allowing a individual tag and value to be distributed over a loop for the same category. This would start to put us into a parallel position to the handling of XML attributes. At 10:35 AM -0500 3/11/10, David Brown wrote: >Dear Colleagues, > >I assume that we are essentially finished in resolving syntax >problems, but in that discussion some items were identified as being >related to DDLm rather than syntax, so before we settle into serious >dictionary writing we need to understand the DDLm rules. > >One item that I believe was raised under this heading was whether, >if a loop contained a single set of items, it was necessary to >formally include this in a loop structure. If this is deemed to be >necessary, then there has to be some way of identifying the items >that must appear in a loop. The presence in the dictionary of a >_category_key.* item would seem to flag this, but it is applied at >the level of the category rather than at the level of an individual >item. If the requirement that the loop structure must always be >used, then all the items in the category must be loopable, i.e., the >category cannot include items that would not normally be included in >the loop, items for example that apply equally to all the listed >items such as a scale factor that is the same for all the structure >factors in a loop. This seems to be workable, but I am not sure how >the legacy CIFs would fit in, since categories may include some >listable item and some non-listable items, and I am sure the >listable items do not always appear in a loop if there is only one >set of such items reported in the CIF. > >Is this something that can be clarified fairly easily? It has an >important bearing on how the CIF dictionaries are written. > >David > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:idbrown 55.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (0046DFC7) >_______________________________________________ >ddlm-group mailing list >ddlm-group@iucr.org >http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group -- ===================================================== 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 ===================================================== _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Finalizing DDLm (David Brown)
- Prev by Date: [ddlm-group] Finalizing DDLm
- Next by Date: [ddlm-group] Moving on to DDLm discussion
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Finalizing DDLm
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Finalizing DDLm
- Index(es):