[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:33:22 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=KKXU7HCc7r2Xji0ssaJg+xkw9Jw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <BANLkTi=KKXU7HCc7r2Xji0ssaJg+xkw9Jw@mail.gmail.com>
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 firstname.lastname@example.org ===================================================== 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 email@example.com http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF? (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] The Grazulis eliding proposal: how to incorporateinto CIF?