[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
--
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Clarification on dREL tables
- To: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yayahjb@gmail.com>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Clarification on dREL tables
- From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2020 08:35:22 +1100
- Cc: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- In-Reply-To: <CABcsX25s9oND1z=N4vSfh85u-j8Va_MA5f_1n7p8hqQ7f24-cQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2fbAtdxM_a+xz8sDeZcaSN=TZ+WzvE8hqMpjTtA-fBW0Q@mail.gmail.com><CABcsX25s9oND1z=N4vSfh85u-j8Va_MA5f_1n7p8hqQ7f24-cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Herbert - I am talking about the dREL Table type (an associative dictionary), not database tables.
all the best,
James.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 22:00, Herbert J. Bernstein <yayahjb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear James, Why is it necessary or desirable to have a uniform type for keys? This would seem to bar a lot of uses ofÂrather natural mmCIF and imgCIF constructs in which tables can be formed with composite keys someof which are integers, such as array_id and binary_id and some of which are strings such as entry_id.This kind of mixture allows us to build useful databases of information culled from multiple entries unlesswe completely forbid making databases of rows extracted from tables with integer keys where the datacomes from multiple entries. Regards,  HerbertOn Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:02 PM James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote:Hi all,_______________________________________________The dREL paper is not explicit on the uniformity of the keys used in dREL tables (associative dictionaries). In the supplementary material it says is that keys can be integers or 'character values'. It is not explicit about whether these types of keys can be mixed in a single table. I suggest we clarify this point by stating that dREL table keys must be of the same type (the key types would be "cased strings", "caseless strings", or "integers"). I note that values are already constrained to be of the same type, and I believe that this stipulation is consistent with the current usage in the CIF dictionaries.If there are any concerns about this, feel free to respond, otherwise I will incorporate this clarification into the Vol G dREL chapter.all the best,James.--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
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
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
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Clarification on dREL tables (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Clarification on dREL tables (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Clarification on dREL tables
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Clarification on dREL tables
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Clarification on dREL tables
- Next by thread: [ddlm-group] A rationalisation of DDLm
- Index(es):