Re: DDL.2.x spec. ?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Peter Keller: "Status of DDL/mmCIF"
• Previous message: John Westbrook: "Re: DDL.2.x spec. ?"
• Maybe in reply to: Weider Chang: "DDL.2.x spec. ?"

Hi John:

Thanks.

On Sun, 22 Jan 1995, John Westbrook wrote:

>
> I am not entirely sure what the issue is here. ....
> ...

You got the point. The point was the inconsistent use of naming convention.
I agree, a fix is needed.

>
> As I see it this is a dictionary developers issue rather than a DDL issue.
> The question of where to place the enumeration in the parent child hierarchy
> is a policy decision that should be set in the dictionary.  Clearly, one
> should be cautious and consistent in the dictionary design to avoid the
> situation that you raise.  I do not think that there need to be any
> additional rules in this regard.
>

I can see you point. However, I am not sure I'll agree with this. Declaration
of enumeration at proper level is dictionary developer's responsibility
for sure. However, interpretation of such declaration and dependency
should belongs to the meta-knowledge of the STAR and should be clearly
spell out in some document to prevent mis-interpretation by the dictionary
developers.

Regards,

/Weider

• Next message: Peter Keller: "Status of DDL/mmCIF"
• Previous message: John Westbrook: "Re: DDL.2.x spec. ?"
• Maybe in reply to: Weider Chang: "DDL.2.x spec. ?"