[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Moving forward with DDLm
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Moving forward with DDLm
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <[email protected]>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:57:11 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
Dear Colleagues,
While I believe that DDLm as currently proposed is, like
CIF2, incomplete and insufficient to serve its intended
purpose, I believe it is a reasonable base upon which to
build what is needed to, for example, support imgCIF.
Therefore, I do not object James Hester's proposed plan
of action, so we will have something stable to work from
as a base.
Regards,
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 Wed, 1 Dec 2010, James Hester wrote:
> Dear DDLm group,
>
> Now that the CIF2 syntax specification is well on the way to approval,
> our energies can be turned towards the remaining pieces in the puzzle,
> which are DDLm and dREL.
>
> DDLm and dREL are the result of at least a decade of development and
> consultation. Given the lack of objections to the DDLm specification
> within this group, I am satisfied that the draft of DDLm that is
> currently posted is sufficiently well-developed to serve as a version
> 0.99 document that can be accepted by COMCIFS under its normal
> dictionary acceptance procedure. This group would then become the
> DDLm dictionary maintenance group (subject to formal COMCIFS
> approval). Meanwhile, work needs to be done to produce DDLm versions
> of current DDL1 and DDL2 dictionaries; this may expose some minor
> flaws in the DDLm specification which I believe can be dealt with as
> DDLm updates. Once a few such DDLm dictionaries are ready, we should
> then be ready to release a 1.0 DDLm specification together with
> accompanying dictionaries. I note here that David Brown has already
> prepared a draft Core dictionary in DDLm based on Nick and Syd's
> version.
>
> Therefore, please indicate if you agree to submit DDLm and dREL to
> COMCIFS for approval without further discussion on this list. In any
> case, if no objections are received by the end of the year (the expiry
> of the term for objections to the CIF2 specification) I will submit
> both DDLm and dREL to COMCIFS for approval in the New Year.
>
> James.
> --
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
[email protected]
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Moving forward with DDLm (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: [ddlm-group] Moving forward with DDLm
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Moving forward with DDLm. .
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Moving forward with DDLm
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Moving forward with DDLm. .
- Index(es):

