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

[ddlm-group] DDLm update

  • To: ddlm-group <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
  • Subject: [ddlm-group] DDLm update
  • From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:22:25 +1100
  • DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;bh=69G0DTKWf3Xn1ujMMiRniPYF5wjSvldSIcRyU6OmsRc=;b=Xdfaq3evNy4t6o+rvHV8FIyrZZKDiQcgI2fQfDQsKDjt1Y89XXRBeUsbKN8NWE8RJ5CnCGc76T64yt2Fx9q5iQJGCN39JgTQe7OKN5SHYknZ8rB47vEmoqTlyykmrl0q6sp5TYv/YyhHh8u4sxD3G0FpCp6j+Vp+o3WzbE5vR4sD5HpOtXVMO/Qfptpl2ud+Dpr4ezUXIOx98KBSfWs+XQeZf9MeUvlbpopxZaI6/BfZmdzpAahFO3yY0Se/6vw+k1+EwRTmGYKwKqoZnvuNgUpsKUK48EfQAkB0CdsFQDAUcMevnO4a81CAv+t2iai+5rz0dmIBKUGROO2nhqNOlg==
Dear DDLm group,

This is a belated update on the progress of the DDL2/DDLm harmonisation work initiated at the Montreal meeting. John Westbrook, Herbert Bernstein and myself had a Skype meeting in mid-September where we agreed:

(1) Not to use syntactically nested save frames in DDLm dictionaries (note this does not affect the logical relationships between categories and items)

(2) To add a new looped dataname, '_category_key.name', which lists in a loop the keys of a category.

(3) To remove _category.key_list (which fulfills an identical function to (2) in a different way)

This concludes the first step of the harmonisation work.  Any further changes to DDLm will be additions rather than alterations and therefore dictionary writers may confidently rely on the current set of attributes.

I have updated the "ddl.dic" file (which defines DDLm) in the COMCIFS Github repository to make the above changes. It has also been converted to CIF2 syntax.  The current version is available at:


Over the next few months I will be converting across the remaining dictionaries in the above repository to CIF2 with the above small changes included.

T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
ddlm-group mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]