[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
RE: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code
- Subject: RE: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code
- From: "Bollinger, John Clayton" <jobollin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:39:27 -0500
James, I can't authoritatively interpret the _category.mandatory_code for you, but I can point you to http://www.crystal.uwa.edu.au/star/StarSpecs.pdf for a formal description of save frame semantics, including scoping. I don't know whether it is specific enough to help, but it does say that the data in a save frame are "insulated from" those in the surrounding data block. I also observe that neither CIF nor STAR defines a mechanism to reference save frame contents, though STAR does have a syntax for referencing an entire save frame as a data value (which, I'm sure you know, is specifically disallowed by CIF). My take on all of this differs from yours. In the absence of clearer semantic specifications, I have looked at save frames as self-contained data objects, independent of their data block except inasmuch as the block scopes their *names* and hence all references to them. I may be reading too much into it, but I take the "insulation" bit in the STAR docs to mean that the inside of a save frame doesn't have a view of the surrounding data block at all. When it comes to validation, then, I'll offer the possibility that you are misapplying the DDL rule: Vol G apparently requires a mandatory category to appear in a *data block* based on the relevant dictionary, but a save frame is not a data block, so this requirement is irrelevant to individual save frames. It is unclear whether a data block that contains a mandatory item within a save frame thereby satisfies the mmcif requirement, but the intent seems to be that it should do. After all that, I'm not sure whether I have addressed your core concern about whether _item_description and _category_description are appropriately defined. My apologies if I have not. Regards, John -- John C. Bollinger, Ph.D. Indiana University Molecular Structure Center jobollin@indiana.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: cif-developers-bounces@iucr.org > [mailto:cif-developers-bounces@iucr.org] On Behalf Of James Hester > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 1:08 AM > To: Forum for CIF software developers > Subject: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code > > _category.mandatory_code is discussed in Volume G p 473 and > in mmcif_ddl_2.1.6.dic, which simply state "Whether or not > the category must be specified in a dictionary". Vol G page > 64 is more explicit and partially contradictory: "whether or > not this category must appear in a data block based on this > dictionary." > > So the interpretation is clear for e.g. the space_group > category of the cif_sym dictionary: any CIF data block > claiming to conform with this dictionary must have at least > one data item belonging to the space_group category. > Likewise, the dictionary category in the core ddl2 dictionary > must appear, and it does, in the datablock outside the > dictionary save frames. > > However, what about the _item_description category in the > core ddl2 dictionary? It has _category.mandatory_code set to > 'yes'. Taking the > p64 description, this is saying no more than that an > attribute from the _item_description category must appear > somewhere in a DDL2 dictionary. > I'm not aware of any explicit description of save frame > scoping in CIF dictionaries, but I deduce that we are > supposed to adopt a model whereby, from the perspective of a > single dictionary save frame, the datablock consists > precisely of the save frame plus the enclosing datablock, > that is, the enclosing datablock is to a save frame what a > global block is to subsequent datablocks in a STAR file. In > this scoping model, we deduce that all save frame definitions > must at the very least include an _item_description > attribute. Unfortunately, this cannot be the case, as some > save frames are category definitions and so an > item_description is absent. Either we should drop the > mandatory specification for _item_description, or improve the > wording to allow e.g. _category_description to substitute for > _item_description. > > Comments? > > James. > -- > ______________________________________________________________ > _________ > James Hester, ANBF KEK > e-mail: jrh@anbf2.kek.jp Oho 1-1 > Phone: +81 298 64 7959 Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305 > Fax: +81 298 64 7967 Japan > ______________________________________________________________ > __________ > _______________________________________________ > cif-developers mailing list > cif-developers@iucr.org > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers > _______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list cif-developers@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code (James Hester)
- Re: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code (David Brown)
- Prev by Date: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code
- Next by Date: Re: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code
- Prev by thread: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code
- Next by thread: Re: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code
- Index(es):