Discussion List Archives

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

Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .. .. .

Dear John B.,

   I am sorry you feel that responding to the comments speaking
to the purpose of Ralf's proposal, even Ralf's explicitly
stated purpose in making the proposal, is not relevant to the
discussion.  Fortunately, Simon was kind enough to provide
a substantive response, but if you do have some other thoughts on
those issues, I still would appreciate knowing them.


At 5:06 PM -0600 2/21/11, Bollinger, John C wrote:
>Dear Herbert,
>On Monday, February 21, 2011 4:11 PM, you  wrote:
>>    Thank you, that was very helpful.
>I am pleased to hear it.
>>                                       To summarize those messages,
>>a majority on COMCIFS made a proposal to make the treble-quoted
>>strings agree with those of Python.  The reasons given were:
>>"such informal
>>descriptions are never as reliable as an actual implementation,
>>in particular one that's been around for many years and is used
>>by millions of people."  (Ralf)
>>   "meaningful adoption of DDLm/CIF2 will require embracing
>>and leveraging existing technologies as much as possible." (John W.)
>>"I find it [counter-intuitive] and unproductive to adopt something
>>that looks very much like the python treble quoted
>>string but which follows confusingly different rules." (HJB)
>>The responses you cite did not seem to address those issues.  Was
>>there a discussion on those issues that I missed?
>>From where I sit it looks like one COMCIFS voting member made a 
>>proposal, a different one supported it -- strongly -- during the 
>>ensuing discussion, and a third voiced vague general support in his 
>>only contribution, but ultimately favored a position ("minimal 
>>changes") inconsistent with that proposal.  Meanwhile, the other 
>>COMCIFS voting members who participated and all other participants 
>>opposed the proposal.  In the end, of five COMCIFS voting members 
>>who voted, only two favored proposal P over *any* of its seven (!) 
>>proposed alternatives.
>I am not confident that any of the opinions you quoted received 
>direct responses during the discussion, but that is irrelevant. 
>They were raised and there is every reason to believe they were 
>heard.  If they were not persuasive to most of the participants, 
>then that means those participants either assigned greater weight to 
>other factors or simply disagreed.  Simon has just provided examples 
>of some of the possible grounds for doing so.
>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

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

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.