Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ddlm-group] Relationship asmong CIF2, STAR,CIF1 and Python. . . .. .

Dear James,

   Please reread the dREL string quoting specifications.
Please reread the dREL conventions on elides.  Let's
settle whether and in what way those items should
remain in the language.


  Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
    Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
         Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769


On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, James Hester wrote:

> I welcome such analysis, which I believe is likely to lead to no more
> than a list of useful editorial changes to DDLm related to small
> changes in syntax since the DDLm draft document was produced.
> It is not trivial to produce a CIF2 version that is fundamentally
> unfriendly to DDLm and dREL, given that DDLm and dREL operate at a
> semantic level and we are producing a syntax document.  Only if our
> CIF2 syntax were to produce a different infoset (abstract
> datastructure) could some of the concepts in DDLm and dREL become
> poorly specified.
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Bollinger, John C
> <John.Bollinger@stjude.org> wrote:
>> On Friday, January 14, 2011 2:30 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>>>   I would suggest recalling that this CIF2 exercise began with
>>> tryin to define a DDLm/dREL-friendly version of CIF.  To the best
>>> of my knowledge, the current DDLm spec is at what is published
>>> on the IUCr web site under http://www.iucr.org/resources/cif/ddl/ddlm
>>> with draft documents from August 2008.  I propose that we all
>>> take the time to review those documents and make a conscious
>>> effort to decide if we wish to make use of them as a
>>> base for CIF2 or not.  They contain many points relevant
>>> to the current discussion.
>> This is an eminently reasonable suggestion, and I have endeavored to take it.  I find I need more time to formulate the results of my analysis, but they do not lead me to the same conclusion that Herbert has reached, that we should start over from scratch.  However, we can, perhaps, consider each of the changes in our current draft, as Herbert prodded us to do, and evaluate them against this group's mandate and objectives.  We might now draw different conclusions about some of them.
>> I decline to work on this over the weekend, and Monday is a U.S. holiday, so it will be at least Tuesday before a I respond more fully.
>> Regards,
>> John
>> --
>> John C. Bollinger, Ph.D.
>> Department of Structural Biology
>> St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
>> Email Disclaimer:  www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
ddlm-group mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Science Council (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ISC Committee on Data. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

International Science Council Scientific Freedom Policy

The IUCr observes the basic policy of non-discrimination and affirms the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science.