[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. .. .
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. .. .
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <[email protected]>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:13:25 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166D7D1EF5@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
- References: <[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166D7D1EDE@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local> <[email protected]> <a06240802c96600c48956@[192.168.2.102]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166D7D1EE1@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local> <a06240800c9668e1faa7c@[192.168.2.102]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166D7D1EE8@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local> <a06240802c9674292646e@[192.168.2.102]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166D7D1EEB@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local> <[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166D7D1EEF@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local> <a06240800c967b204830b@[192.168.2.102]> <[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166D7D1EF5@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
Dear Colleagues,
>If it affects the logic that my programs must perform to correctly
>validate a CIF, including a dictionary CIF, then it is a technical
>issue. If I can make a valid technical argument favoring one
>position, then it is a technical issue. It becomes a matter of
>taste only if we make a technical decision that it should be so.
>Herbert clearly prefers that we make such a decision, but he is not
>empowered to declare it made.
I have been trying to find out what the consensus decision is,
but I not only can declare a decision to be made with respect to my own
work, I have to do so. Whether the result then is part of CIF or part
of something else (call it "yaxdf") is then a matter for future
consideration. I have a new grant I need to get moving on. I would
rather that the work I am doing be well-coordinated with CIF. I
have been trying. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be making progress.
So, my fallback is to simply do the work I need to do with prefixed
tags and show you the results in Madrid. I hope you will like the
results and adopt them for CIF. Perhaps you won't and will decide
to do something different for CIF. Perhaps the results will be
a disaster and I will try something different myself, but I'll
never know if this is a good idea, a bad idea or something in between
unless until and unless I work it through with software and
examples.
I'll post the prefixed-tag version that I will be starting with
to this list sometime soon for your information.
Regards,
Herbert
At 4:56 PM -0600 2/1/11, Bollinger, John C wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 9:55 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>> There is no "point" in denormalizing for presentaion purposes.
>>The normalized and denormailzed presentations carry the same
>>information.
>
>As long as this is this is merely a presentation issue, that's true.
>When the data model is denormalized in order to permit a
>denormalized presentation, it is no longer true. It is to the
>latter that I object.
>
>> This really is just a matter of taste. John B. is wrong when he
>>tries to settle it as a technical issue.
>
>If it affects the logic that my programs must perform to correctly
>validate a CIF, including a dictionary CIF, then it is a technical
>issue. If I can make a valid technical argument favoring one
>position, then it is a technical issue. It becomes a matter of
>taste only if we make a technical decision that it should be so.
>Herbert clearly prefers that we make such a decision, but he is not
>empowered to declare it made.
>
>> If you, in working with the core want the alias information in
>>denormailized form, that is fine. If you, in working with the core
>>are more comfortable with the alias information normalized, that is
>>fine. We don't need a uniform answer for all dictionaries. It is
>>easy to go back and forth and to combine information from both
>>forms.
>>
>> We already have multiple flavors of dictionaries because we are
>>all different people and we have different work to do.
>The important issue is not that the dictionary styles be the same
>but that they contain the necessary information in ways that allow
>them to be combined in a consistent, interoperable manner.
>
>Inasmuch as this is about the appropriate requirements for
>presenting parent and child categories in joined form, I find the
>argument somewhat persuasive. However, I'm still confused by the
>emphasis that Herbert is placing on this issue. If the language
>provides an adequate way to do the job, then why is it of such
>importance that it also provide alternatives? Doing so makes the
>language more difficult to process, which might overall outweigh any
>benefit it provides to dictionary authors. I'm not sure where the
>balance lies, but I don't think anyone is well served by
>insufficiently considered action.
>
>
>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
>[email protected]
>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
[email protected]
=====================================================
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
[email protected]
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed) (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). . (David Brown)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. . (John Westbrook)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. . (David Brown)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. . (David Brown)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. .. .... .
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. .. .... .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. .. .
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .
- Index(es):

