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

Re: [ddlm-group] Proposal to enhance the behaviour of a DDLm "Set"category: please consider

This is very close to what Herbert has described with his usage of implicit-manadatory where thedefault value provides a placeholder for the common usage and only exceptional cases requirean material change.
On 6/7/16 9:53 AM, James Hester wrote:> Hi John: absolutely you are right. I think the best way forward is to introduce a single new "compulsory" dataname, with a name like> "_audit.schema" that would be used to distinguish different uses of the same datanames, and with a default value corresponding to> current usage.  Has this been tried before? I don't know.>> On 7 June 2016 at 04:22, Bollinger, John C <John.Bollinger@stjude.org <mailto:John.Bollinger@stjude.org>> wrote:>>     Dear all,>>     Comments below:>>     On Sunday, June 05, 2016 11:58 PM, James Hester wrote:>>     > [...] The real issue is a live one even for a straight relational database, i.e. if you add a key column to a table, how do>     you tell all the applications using that table to pay attention to the value of the new key?>     >>     > [...] No harm arises for legacy software dealing with legacy files, or future software dealing with any file. There is>     potential harm for legacy CIF-reading software dealing with new-style files.  This is something we have to face and find a>     solution for.>     >>     > [...]Unfortunately my original proposal does introduce further equivalent datanames, which I think must be avoided [...].  Our>     best hope is therefore likely to be something very similar to John B's proposal, which is really a description of what you do in>     imgCIF.>>     I don't see how there can be a solution that simultaneously satisfies all the criteria that have been offered.  If we refuse to>     permit existing data names to be used in ways that existing software might not anticipate, and we refuse to introduce new data>     names for alternative uses of the same entities, then for entities we have already defined, we are forever stuck with uses that>     can be accommodated by their original definitions.  If we're not satisfied with that outcome then the only way I see forward is>     to reject one of the criteria.>>>     John>>>     ________________________________>>     Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer <http://www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer>>     Consultation Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/consultationdisclaimer <http://www.stjude.org/consultationdisclaimer>>     _______________________________________________>     ddlm-group mailing list>     ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>>     http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group>
-- John Westbrook, Ph.D.RCSB, Protein Data BankRutgers, The State University of New JerseyDepartment of Chemistry and Chemical Biology174 Frelinghuysen RdPiscataway, NJ 08854-8087e-mail: john.westbrook@rcsb.orgPh: (848) 445-4290 Fax: (732) 445-4320_______________________________________________ddlm-group mailing listddlm-group@iucr.orghttp://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group

Reply to: [list | sender only]