Discussion List Archives

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

Re: [ddlm-group] Simplifying string handling in CIF2

I disagree.  We are already committed to continuing to support both
CIF1 and CIF2 data sets in the future, so there is every reason to
deal with both CIF 1.1 string syntax issues _and_ CIF 2 syntax issues
in our discussions.

In any case -- to avoid any misunderstanding and have us all working 
from the same base please send whatever proposal we are discussing as 
one self-contained document

   -- Herbert

At 12:38 PM +1000 7/26/11, James Hester wrote:
>Dear DDLm group,
>This email is in response to Herbert's suggestion of reverting 
>wholesale to CIF1.1 string handling conventions, and including the 
>Grazulis elide proposal to cover the strings that would be otherwise 
>impossible to represent.
>As I see it, we are faced with four alternatives:
>(1) Revert completely to CIF1.1 string handling and add the Grazulis protocol;
>  - this means no triple-quoted strings, but we could reserve the 
>prefix for future expansion
>  - we would be arbitrarily reverting our previous decisions on string syntax
>(2) Add the Grazulis proposal to CIF2 as per John Bollinger's draft, 
>and maintain the adjustments to string syntax that we've agreed to, 
>but drop triple-quoted strings;
>  - again we could reserve the triple-quoted prefix for future expansion
>(3) Ignore the Grazulis proposal and continue to search for an elide 
>solution based on triple-quoted strings;
>(4) Adopt the Grazulis proposal and continue to search for an 
>additional elide solution based on triple-quoted strings;
>I do not think that we will reach a mutually agreeable solution in 
>finite time for a triple-quoted string solution.  Both Herbert and 
>John W. seem quite certain that rich built-in semantics for 
>triple-quoted strings is appropriate.  I and others disagree, and I 
>think we have explored the arguments pretty thoroughly.  Therefore, 
>the practical option would be to drop triple-quoted strings 
>altogether or at least to defer them to a future minor enhancement 
>(by reserving the prefix). 
>I think the way forward therefore lies with either option (1) or 
>(2).  As John B. points out, there are no new reasons to revert to 
>CIF1.1 string handling, and this group has already spilt much ink on 
>discussing changes to string syntax, so option (2) seems the most 
>Could everyone please give their thoughts on the above analysis.
>T +61 (02) 9717 9907
>F +61 (02) 9717 3145
>M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>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.