[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The COD team [1] that I am a part of have previously developed a DDLm validator [2] that is capable of validating DDLm dictionaries against the reference dictionary. I support this change since it would indeed simplify the dictionary and prevent certain ambiguities/contradictions (see [3, 4]).
[1] http://www.crystallography.net/cod/
[2] https://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S1600576720016532
--
room V325, SaulÄ—tekio al. 7,
LT-10257 Vilnius, Lithuania
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Revising dictionary_valid category
- To: james.r.hester@gmail.com, Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Revising dictionary_valid category
- From: Antanas Vaitkus <antanas.vaitkus90@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:22:23 +0300
- In-Reply-To: <CAM+dB2e1zzmzRvhjxw6Lrqk4z_gu1n75PGJN9zvZs7q3yC_SGw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2e1zzmzRvhjxw6Lrqk4z_gu1n75PGJN9zvZs7q3yC_SGw@mail.gmail.com>
Dear James,
Dear all,[1] http://www.crystallography.net/cod/
[2] https://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S1600576720016532
[3] https://github.com/COMCIFS/cif_core/issues/212
[4] https://github.com/COMCIFS/cif_core/issues/213
[4] https://github.com/COMCIFS/cif_core/issues/213
Sincerely,
Antanas Vaitkus
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 05:31, James H <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear DDLm experts,_______________________________________________DDLm introduced a category called "dictionary_valid" (hereafter "dv" for brevity), which specifies which DDLm attributes are allowed in which scopes. This category appears only in "ddl.dic", the file specifying the DDLm language. The key for the category is a synthetic list constructed out of _dv.scope and _dv.option: dv.application = [_dv.scope , _dv.option].I would like to propose replacing this synthetic key with the natural key consisting simply of the two data names _dv.scope and _dv.option.The reason for doing this is simplicity: there is no need for the list to be constructed, no new information is provided by constructing the list compared to simply specifying that the two datanames form a key, and software is forced to take a further step to deconstruct the list in order to interpret the contents individually. In addition, as _dv.option has a default value of "Recommended", its explicit value should be included in the dv loop in any case to avoid the contradictions that would arise if it were absent.Note that the only implications of this change would be for software that ingests ddl.dic in order to validate DDLm dictionaries. If you are an author of such software, please provide feedback on whether or not you are happy to support this change. Note that we have performed the same operation in many places for the core DDLm dictionary.best wishes,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
--
Antanas Vaitkus,
PhD student at Vilnius University Institute of Biotechnology,room V325, SaulÄ—tekio al. 7,
LT-10257 Vilnius, Lithuania
_______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: [ddlm-group] Revising dictionary_valid category
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Split _model_site.adp_eigen_system intoeigen_vector and eigen_value
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Revising dictionary_valid category
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Revising dictionary_valid category
- Index(es):