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

Re: [ddlm-group] DDLm aliases (subject changed). .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .

Hi John,

On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:23 PM, you wrote:

>I am trying to follow your discussion with respect to the appropriate
>basis for alias.    From my perspective, it is important to retain
>item_name, dictionary name, and version as the identifier.  There
>are currently no conventions on dictionary naming that distinguish
>version details.    Also, it is a DDL2 convention that aliases refer
>specifically to the same item of data (e.g. semantically equivalent
>items).

I would like to be sure I understand.  You are asking for DDLm aliases to be even more specifically identified than anything currently on the table provides.  Do you indeed need or want the ability for a definition to specify two aliases that differ only in dictionary version?  If not, then wouldn't it be sufficient to have dictionary version as a non-key attribute?

Also, I see that the item aliases in the current public version of cif_mm.dic appear to nearly all refer to the same version of the core dictionary (version 2.0.1).  Would it meet your needs for DDLm to associate the dictionary version with the dictionary name elsewhere?  In the DICTIONARY_XREF category, for instance, where it could be done once for all?


Thanks,

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

Reply to: [list | sender only]