[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <[email protected]>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:02:15 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]>
Done. -- 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
[email protected]
=====================================================
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, James Hester wrote:
> As I am not a subscriber to any of these lists, perhaps somebody who is a subscriber could handle
> posting an announcement and relaying back to this group the salient points in any ensuing
> discussion?� I've included below a slightly edited text of the original annoucement to the
> cif-developers list as a possible announcement text.
>
> James
> ==========================
>
> Dear CIF users,
> As some of you may be aware, a new CIF dictionary framework is under
> development. This framework consists of an updated CIF syntax
> (CIF2), a new set of dictionary attributes (DDLm), and a
>
> machine-readable language for describing algorithmic relationships
> between datanames (dREL). The working group for developing this new
> framework has come up with a final draft for the CIF2 syntax
> component, which is available at
>
> http://www.iucr.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/41426/cif2_syntax_changes_jrh20100705.pdf
> We are now seeking feedback from the community on this proposed new
>
> syntax standard. Please note that this CIF2 standard is designed to
> coexist with the CIF1 standard (which it closely resembles), rather
> than to replace it.
> The discussions surrounding the CIF2 specification are archived at
>
> http://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/lists/ddlm-group/ .
> Some highlights of the the proposed CIF2 syntax:
> * A list datavalue is introduced: lists are enclosed by square
>
> brackets, e.g. [1 2 3 4] or [[1 'x'] 3 ['y' 5 ['pqr' 7] 8 ]].
> List-valued data items are vital for economically expressing matrix
> and vector relationships in dREL algorithms.
> * A table datavalue is introduced, enclosed by curly braces, e.g.
>
> {"colour":"red" "size":"really big"}. Table datastructures allow
> tabulated values (e.g. f' values) to be transparently accessed in dREL
> algorithms.
> * Both lists and tables are recursive, that is, lists and tables can
>
> contain other lists and tables
> * Multi-line strings may now be delimited using triple quotes (""") or
> triple single quotes ('''), as well as the CIF1.1 <newline><semicolon>
>
> delimiter.
> * Single-quote delimited strings and double-quote delimited strings
> may not contain instances of the delimiter character. This differs
> from the CIF1.1 standard, which allowed instances of the delimiting
>
> character if the next character was not whitespace.
> * CIF2 files are in UTF8 encoding. Note that ASCII is a proper subset of UTF8.
> The DDLm working group would welcome any feedback you may have on this
> specification, whether through open discussion on this list or by
>
> contacting members of the working group (see the online discussion
> archive for names of the participants).
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Even though I do not agree with many of the restrictions in this document, I urge
> starting discussion of these changes on the various community-wide
> discussion lists. �I suggest announcements to pdb-l, ccp4bb and ccp4-dev
> lists.
>
> � �-- 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
> � � � � � � � � [email protected]
> =====================================================
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, James Hester wrote:
>
> Brian has now posted the document.� You can find it at:
> http://www.iucr.org/resources/cif/spec/cif-2-development
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:19 PM, James Hester <[email protected]> wrote:
> � � �I am happy to proceed as Brian suggests.� As far actually preparing a draft
> goes, on May 7 John B kindly
> � � �provided me with an editable version of the original draft specification with
> those suggested changes of
> � � �his that were uncontroversial already included.� I have updated that draft
> making the following specific
> � � �changes:
>
> � � �1. Change the 2048-byte limit to a 2048-character limit
> � � �2. Incorporate XML-type newline handling
> � � �3. Refer to UTF-8 as the designated encoding for files conformant to the
> specification
> � � �4. State that U+FEFF is not part of the allowed character set (ie. would be
> everywhere a syntax error).� I
> � � �include this as the voting on this point, such as it was, gave a slight
> majority to option 2(a) over option
> � � �2(c)(ii).
> � � �5. Disallow Unicode non-characters.� I have *not* dealt with the issue of
> disallowing non-printing
> � � �characters.� As the draft currently stands, non-printing characters are
> acceptable.�
>
> � � �The updated draft is in Brian's hands, and I'm hoping he will post it to the
> IUCr website shortly for your
> � � �comment.
>
> � � �James.
>
> � � �On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Brian McMahon <[email protected]> wrote:
> � � � � � �Colleagues
>
> � � � � � �Like Buridan's ass we are starving to death between the equally
> � � � � � �enticing mound of hay that is UTF-8 and the smorgasbord of mixed
> � � � � � �vegetables offered by multiple encodings.
>
> � � � � � �I suggest that this group complete a *draft* CIF2 specification
> � � � � � �that describes (if necessary) specific character allusions in
> � � � � � �terms of a canonical UTF-8 encoding, and states that UTF-8 is the
> � � � � � �designated encoding for files conformant to the specification.
>
> � � � � � �Post the completed draft in the first instance to the cif-developers
> � � � � � �list (since that is supposed to the the most relevant target audience),
> � � � � � �but certainly to other lists at the same time if folk think that would
> � � � � � �be productive. By all means accompany the release with a commentary on
> � � � � � �the difficulties we have faced over the encoding issue; by all means
> � � � � � �implement a survey and analyse the results to assess community demand
> � � � � � �for an upward revision of the draft - but let us give people something
> � � � � � �concrete to begin with, and challenge them actively to protest if the
> � � � � � �proposal will impede their work.
>
> � � � � � �Note that this proposal doesn't necessarily reflect a personal
> � � � � � �preference for a single mandatory encoding - I still cannot
> � � � � � �decide which I "prefer". But if the suggested draft is published,
> � � � � � �I will not vote against it unless I suddenly see clearly a real
> � � � � � �problem that it would throw up in the way of any applications I
> � � � � � �would envisage writing. I would hope "the community" would respond
> � � � � � �in similar vein, so that stated objections would both represent real
> � � � � � �difficulties and help to define the environments giving rise to these
> � � � � � �real difficulties.
>
> � � � � � �Best wishes
> � � � � � �Brian
> � � � � � �_______________________________________________
> � � � � � �ddlm-group mailing list
> � � � � � �[email protected]
> � � � � � �http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>
>
>
>
> --
> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>
>
>
>
> --
> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ddlm-group mailing list
> [email protected]
> 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 [email protected] http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- Next by thread: [ddlm-group] On process
- Index(es):

