[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yayahjb@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:29:50 -0400
- DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ItXAGYruxaRtM0tbgOweSv6ADPy7ogx6ar1p1hQJ9sY=;b=SibzEM5RnV5xjK22H7whvtGvdRWmgMEdzcuv8Fy+Go1E/TMA256mtcTPGmPtYjBYd17hfkqdTCXo4EPYyofSoxh77vDNS3yIsrOSi5mA4iMZZtzIrcXHGNKJJGu/UDAcO6Z9T8DiqMQWWWaoL/8RjOUg34utQcxBUYZE87c32BxiBJbZDRG/4UHCYMLYTja9J0/IFJccjjjyPvuq2Di0eEU1b3+Lm7nh8wq3KIKVlyYOFeNoh62974YGed++12UU02QA5s3HSDdEYK4lEov/juxYgwXWUI2XAj2mkw3qw7eclvEEm88S8476zYd4RaK2I9me//TUxtyqA6hA90GjRA==
- In-Reply-To: <CAM+dB2ewKj1txr7Hw-Z16AdcrgtxiUoOgyQZs48CdLDjH3sr+A@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2eWm0m2qYTB1O7L2St-RUOJM5FRimFCozhwqWLEC0UR-Q@mail.gmail.com><CAM+dB2eR1cHPGFUyEYbdiTVCSDpGYfpSZa_MhfAGs+7FBDfUaQ@mail.gmail.com><53F69074.8040000@rcsb.rutgers.edu><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54756EB8E8D8@11.stjude.org><CAM+dB2dFBEVAhVo+rdJkJP+KzLXwvjUpsCxRK=8j=XcRZ3N94A@mail.gmail.com><53FDB4E2.2010600@rcsb.rutgers.edu><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54756ED3E79F@11.stjude.org><53FE48D1.9010305@gmail.com><CAM+dB2ewKj1txr7Hw-Z16AdcrgtxiUoOgyQZs48CdLDjH3sr+A@mail.gmail.com>
Sounds good to me. -- Herbert On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:33 PM, James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote: > Shall we wrap up this discussion then along the following lines: > > (1) Nested save frames are removed from the CIF2 EBNF syntax specification > (2) Nested save frames will not be used in COMCIFS-approved DDLm > dictionaries > (3) Documentation can point to the STAR2 specification and repeat the > comments that John B has made regarding handling nested save frames. > > Unless there are clear objections to (1) and (2) over the next few (working) > days, I think we can consider the CIF2 EBNF with nested save frames removed > as accepted by us and commence/continue work on supporting software and > documentation. At a later stage I plan to post the EBNF to our github site > together with a FAQ document. > > all the best, > James. > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:08 AM, yayahjb <yayahjb@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> We will have a lot less trouble with the new dictionaries if we don't use >> nested save frames in them. >> We don't need nested save frames in a dictionary. We don't need any save >> frames, nest, or otherwise >> in a data file. Let's save nesting of save frames until we have an actual >> use case. >> >> That being said, I am a great fan of liberal parsers than can make sense >> of natural extensions of the >> language they should formally read. >> >> >> >> On 8/27/14 10:40 AM, Bollinger, John C wrote: >>> >>> I'm having trouble seeing the down side of providing for save frame >>> nesting in the CIF2 syntax specifications. Doing so would enable *but not >>> require* nested frames to be used in DDLm and DDLm dictionaries, but any way >>> around they are irrelevant to DDL1 and DDL2 dictionaries (whether written in >>> CIF1 or CIF2 syntax) and to all CIF data files currently envisioned. To a >>> parser that does not understand them, nested frames will look like a >>> combination of a missing frame terminator between adjacent frames plus an >>> extraneous frame terminator at some later point, and such a parser must be >>> prepared to handle those errors in some way anyway (that is exactly the CIF1 >>> situation). A parser specialized for a domain to which nested save frames >>> are not relevant can be such a parser, since nested frames would be >>> erroneous in its target domain anyway. >>> >>> On the other hand, allowing nested frames in the syntax would maximize >>> our leverage from the Perth group's existing tools and recent work. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ddlm-group mailing list >> ddlm-group@iucr.org >> http://mailman.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > > > > > -- > T +61 (02) 9717 9907 > F +61 (02) 9717 3145 > M +61 (04) 0249 4148 > > _______________________________________________ > ddlm-group mailing list > ddlm-group@iucr.org > http://mailman.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://mailman.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2 (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2 (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2 (John Westbrook)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2 (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2 (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2 (John Westbrook)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2 (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2 (yayahjb)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2 (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Draft EBNF for CIF2
- Index(es):