[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: David Brown <idbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:38:54 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <E88024C0BA8052478C717D472F978C1803CED8E6@iu-mssg-mbx05.exchange.iu.edu>
- References: <E88024C0BA8052478C717D472F978C1803CED8E6@iu-mssg-mbx05.exchange.iu.edu>
Just one point of clarification. item_description is a category in DDL2 which contains two items, _item_description.name and _item_description.description. Clearly a dictionary save frame would be incomplete without the item's name being present (_item_description.name) hence it is mandatory. As James points out however, these two items do not appear in the save frames that describe categories. However, to correct James on a minor point, the name of the category is not given in _category_description (this is the category equivalent of _item_description.description) but in the item _category.id. _category.id is also described as mandatory but only appears in the category save frames, not the item save frames. Thus the mandatory 'yes' should only apply to _category.id in save frames that describe the attributes of a category, and _item_description.name should only be mandatory in save frames that describe the attributes of an item. It is not clear to me that there is an easy way to resolve this problem. (_category.id is not to be confused with _item.category_id which identifies the category that an item belongs to - as if this were not confusing enough already) However one interprets the star and cif descriptions, it seems clear to me that what is intended is that a save frame should be read in conjunction with surrounding datablock (i.e., ignoring only the other save frames in the data block). Since programs that access CIF2 dictionaries (CIF dictionaries written using DDL2) need to be able to handle save frames, there should be no objection to introducing save frames into CIFs that conform to yet-to-be-written CIF3 dictionaries (i.e., CIF dictionaries written in the proposed DDL3). This would have the advantage of allowing people to describe more than one experiment in the same CIF - all the items common to both experiments would be in the datablock while the description of the two experiments would be in two different save frames. However this would only make sense if a save frame is to be read in the context of the surrounding datablock. Our present procedure of including several related datablocks in the same file is unsatisfactory because datablocks are explicitly stated to be independent and there is no satisfactory way of linking them. 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]
- References:
- RE: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code (Bollinger, John Clayton)
- Prev by Date: RE: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code
- Next by Date: RE: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code
- Prev by thread: RE: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code
- Next by thread: RE: Meaning of _category.mandatory_code
- Index(es):