[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: Draft and analysis of proposed change to DDL1.4 tofix _atom_site_aniso_label
- Subject: Re: Draft and analysis of proposed change to DDL1.4 tofix _atom_site_aniso_label
- From: David Brown <idbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:03:41 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <1119428522.31134.71.camel@anbf10>
- References: <1119428522.31134.71.camel@anbf10>
I have been reading this correspondence with interest (as have other members of the group), but I did not feel that I had much to offer as James and Nick seemed to be sorting things out on their own. James' resolution of the problem, suggesting additions to the DDL1 dictionary, sounds like a good fix which certainly encapsulates the essence of what we were thinking when we developed the _atom_site section of the core dictionary. The separate aniso loop was put in because many people seemed to like keeping the positional and displacements parameters in separate tables, and this was the convention adopted by SHELX and other software, presumably in order to keep each row of the table on one 80 character line. The _atom_site_aniso_label was added only because STAR did not allow _atom_site_label to be repeated in the second loop. I should point out, however, that COMCIFS does not have authority to change or approve DDLs, it can only approve CIF dictionaries. I am not sure who is in charge of DDLs, probably Nick and Syd. As Nick pointed out we developed CIF by the seat of our pants. The first CIF dictionary was conceived as a typeset printed document and it was only later that it was realized that it could be typeset by storing the dictionary on a computer as a STAR document. Still later it was realized that a STAR dictionary could be used to validate CIFs and even later that it was realized that CIFs could have a relational structure. Thus DDL was developed on the fly to accommodate CIF dictionaries that were already well developed. During this period Acta Cryst. was tooling up to accept structure reports in CIF and decisions had to be made quickly at a time when it was impossible to foresee all the implications of what we were doing. There were also compromises that were thought necessary to make CIF acceptable to the community, and it was in this spirit that Acta Cryst. accepted many CIFs into its archives that were not strictly CIF conformant. Software has taken a long time to catch up with the potential of what was designed into CIF and its DDLs. Browser-editors that validate coreCIFs against the dictionary have only appeared in the last couple of years, more than a decade after the release of the core dictionary, and even these do not validate the relational structure. By hindsight (i.e., with ten years experience as well as the appearance of XML) it is clear that we should have done some things differently, and at Florence we need to review the whole question of where CIF goes from here. We may decide that we need to adopt starDDL which has been more carefully thought out, but there will be a cost. All the dictionaries will need to be revised, the changes will have to be sold to the community and the trauma of transition will have to be minimized. It would, however, give us a chance to get it right the second time. Apparently there has been a systems failure in Chester, which is why there is been such a stunning silence from that quarter. David Brown
begin:vcard fn:I.David Brown n:Brown;I.David org:McMaster University;Brockhouse Institute for Materials Research adr:;;King St. W;Hamilton;Ontario;L8S 4M1;Canada email;internet:idbrown@mcmaster.ca title:Professor Emeritus tel;work:+905 525 9140 x 24710 tel;fax:+905 521 2773 version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list cif-developers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Draft and analysis of proposed change to DDL1.4 to fix_atom_site_aniso_label (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: spilt lists in DDL 1.4
- Next by Date: Re: Draft and analysis of proposed change to DDL1.4 to fix_atom_site_aniso_label
- Prev by thread: Draft and analysis of proposed change to DDL1.4 to fix_atom_site_aniso_label
- Next by thread: Re: Draft and analysis of proposed change to DDL1.4 to fix_atom_site_aniso_label
- Index(es):