[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: Brian McMahon <bm@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:56:10 +0100
- In-Reply-To: <1119921778.7114.14.camel@anbf10>
- References: <1118992457.18478.123.camel@anbf10><20050627090402.GB3293@emerald.iucr.org><1119921778.7114.14.camel@anbf10>
> 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. I consider this "less" of a problem inasmuch as it seems more plausible to me to pass along the _list_reference function through redirection via _related_function. Even so, the semantics still need to be made specific, as you have argued before. > 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? Well, I think it's useful to have preliminary discussions on the list so people have some awareness in advance of what the issues are. For me, the real issue is not whether the perhaps one-off problem of the atom site list can be cleanly solved, but whether the hybrid data model of DDL1.4 is useful in real life for particular classes of data set. As Herbert said, if one needs (or is content with) a representation that is isomorphous to a normalized relational database model, DDL2 is the model of choice. In what circumstances is that not an appropriate representation? Brian Toby has examples in pdCIF where he wants the freedom to overlay listings of raw, processed and calculated intensities in the same table or in different tables or listings. Is this the mark of a lazy programmer, or of a distinct need? > "Un"supporting DDL1.4 is a topic that should provoke plenty of spirited > discussion... is 7 days enough? I would argue that without complete DDL1 validators, DDL1.4 never has been *fully* supported, but the argument can become somewhat circular: one must assume that before now there haven't been full validators because there wasn't sufficient perceived need for them. Presumably programmers have felt they understood the intentions behind CIF well enough to write adequate software, either for writing CIFs, which is easy, or for reading CIFs, which can be relatively easy if you're interested only in pulling out rather specific items. It's arguable to what extent that's true, and it is an approach that won't scale to much larger applications. However, if the community feels that DDL1.4 remains a valuable model, that demonstrable flaws can be fixed (i.e. it isn't fundamentally broken) and that working tools based on it can be made available, then that is something COMCIFS must take into account when it debates future directions. We also need an understanding of how Syd and Nick's StarDDL developments will cover the flaws in the DDL1 model - I understand that it is pretty robust in handling relational data, but can it accommodate cleanly the non-relational needs that DDL1.4 still tries to meet? I'll probably go quiet on this topic for the next couple of weeks while I put Volume G to bed, but by all means let's hear what people have to say. Best wishes Brian _______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list cif-developers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- _atom_site_aniso_label is broken (James Hester)
- Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken (Brian McMahon)
- Re: _atom_site_aniso_label is broken (James Hester)
- 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):