[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 <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Moving forward with DDLm
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:57:11 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikM3+=u1X4XL_A0ZaxeTdHz8MJPgmAH-0wjQfTq@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTikM3+=u1X4XL_A0ZaxeTdHz8MJPgmAH-0wjQfTq@mail.gmail.com>
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 yaya@dowling.edu ===================================================== 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 > 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
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):