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

Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?

Dear Colleagues,

   I am sorry that my position was misunderstood.  For CIF2, my vote
is no on this proposal.

   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 Tue, 28 Jun 2011, James Hester wrote:

> Dear DDLm group,
> 
> As none of you have raised any substantial objections to the Grazulis
> eliding proposal, I think we can consider it accepted. The question now
> arises as to how it will fit into the CIF framework.  I see the following
> possibilities:
> 
> (1) As a required protocol for all CIF semicolon-delimited text strings
> (must be recognised by CIF readers)
> (2) As an available protocol for all CIF semicolon-delimited text strings
> (may not be recognised by all CIF readers)
> (3) As a string type defined in DDLm for use in domain dictionary
> definitions (only needs to be recognised by domain-specific software)
> 
> Under option (1), the "official" value of a given semicolon-delimited string
> would be unambiguously that which results from decoding the protocol.  Under
> option (2) there would be two "official" values: the undecoded value and the
> decoded value, either of which would be acceptable output for a conformant
> parser; under option (3) the dictionary determines how to process the string
> (identically to interpreting e.g. LaTeX strings today).  Under option (3)
> the "official" value from a CIF parser would be the undecoded value, and the
> "official" value after application of the dictionary definition would be the
> decoded value.
> 
> My comments:
> Option (3) has the formal effect of requiring that either the type of string
> delimiter is carried forward to the dictionary layer, so that triple-quote
> delimited strings are not inadvertently "decoded", or else that the protocol
> is applied uniformly across all multi-line string constructs for that
> particular dictionary type.
> 
> Option (2) insofar as it involves optional behaviour essentially sidelines
> the proposal, as CIF writers cannot count on it being understood at the
> reading end and so cannot use it to encode important information
> 
> Option (1) imposes extra burdens on CIF parser writers, although as Saulius
> notes it is not particularly difficult to implement.
> 
> My preference is either (1) or (3), perhaps inclining towards (3) in order
> to shift complexity to the dictionary level.  If the protocol is seen to be
> generally useful, it would be reasonable to prefer (1).
> 
> 
> --
> 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

Reply to: [list | sender only]