[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Cif dictionary version numbers

• Subject: Cif dictionary version numbers
• From: Matthew Towler <towler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:53:06 +0100

Hi

I just downloaded the latest versions of the DDL1 dictionaries that are 
distributed with enCIFer (www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk) from the URL Brian 
provided viz.

ftp://ftp.iucr.org/pub/cifdics/cifdic

Then as a double check tried validating them against the ddl_core.dic 
(from the same site).  What I found was that cif_ms.dic, cif_rho.dic, 
cif_pd.dic and cif_core.dic all give the same validation error.  In 
encifer this is:

"Data value is not a correctly formatted number: _dictionary_version"

According to ddl_core.dic the _type of _dictionary_version is numb.  1.0 
and 1.1 are valid numbers but 1.0.1 and 2.3.1 are not, at least by my 
understanding of the definition of a number in the CIF 1.1 specification.
This could be a serious issue if some computer program attempted to 
compare dictionaries by converting the value of _dictionary_version to a 
number.

So my question is, should the dictionary versions that do not meet the 
dictionary specification be changed so that they do? i.e.

1.0.1 -> 1.1
2.3.1 -> 2.4

Matthew

_______________________________________________
cif-developers mailing list
cif-developers@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Cif dictionary version numbers (Brian McMahon)

• Prev by Date: Re: DDL2/mm_CIF bugs/suggestions
• Next by Date: Re: DDL2/mm_CIF bugs/suggestions
• Prev by thread: Announcement: release of new editions of CIF dictionaries
• Next by thread: Re: Cif dictionary version numbers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread