[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken
- Subject: Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken
- From: James Hester <jrh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:22:58 +0900
- In-Reply-To: <20050627090402.GB3293@emerald.iucr.org>
- References: <1118992457.18478.123.camel@anbf10><20050627090402.GB3293@emerald.iucr.org>
Hi Brian, Yes, the timing was a bit unfortunate, especially given that DDL1.4 has been out there for many years. > To resolve this error of logic, we shall drop "_list_mandatory yes" from > the definition of _atom_site_aniso_label that goes out with Volume G (I > expect to release all the Volume-G compatible dictionaries within the next > couple of weeks). There is also the _list_reference problem, whereby _atom_site_aniso_ items have _atom_site_aniso_label as their _list_reference, which would mean that when _atom_site_aniso items appear in a single loop with _atom_site_items _atom_site_aniso_label still has to be in the loop. > Volume G also contains some discussion of the ATOM_SITE list problem which > make it clear what the intention is (in just the way elaborated in the > discussions on this list last week). > > It is too late in the day to make last-minute changes to DDL1.4 definitions > for release with this Volume - without careful thought and testing there is > too high a risk of introducing bad side-effects from what appear to be > sensible modifications. It seems to me that James certainly has the flavour > of the type of thinking that is needed to interpret the existing > definitions, and better documentation ought to make the suggested > procedures explicit, but I think that can only be done when *and if* > there are functioning reference implementations for full DDL1.4-based > validators. Speaking of full DDL1.4 validators, I think I'll have something to show you in Florence. There are a number of alternative resolutions to the _atom_site_aniso_label problem - would it be useful to talk about them here, or would doing it on the spot (if considered necessary) in Florence be more effective? > Florence will provide a great opportunity for the CIF community to consider > to what extent (if any) DDL1.4 should still be considered "supported", > and I'm very glad that you will be there, James. "Un"supporting DDL1.4 is a topic that should provoke plenty of spirited discussion... is 7 days enough? See you, James. _______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list cif-developers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken (Brian McMahon)
- References:
- _atom_site_aniso_label is broken (James Hester)
- Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken (Brian McMahon)
- Prev by Date: Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken
- Next by Date: Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken
- Prev by thread: Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken
- Next by thread: Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken
- Index(es):