RE: Herbert's comments... > In Syd's hierarchy, I would suggest dropping dRel down to the same level > as DDL, and trying for two levels of metalangauge instead of three. Two > should be enough. Keep in mind that we see dREL as not being a captive of a DDL methods attribute, and therefore a potential scripting language in its own right. That is, it is likely, with the appropriate tool, that dREL could be used directly in software much in the same way that ciftbx function calls are used now. At this early stage we are trying to keep the dREL development and the DDL with which it interacts, as independent as possible. AND.... As in the past I too support getting ISO recognition for the STAR/CIF standard. The main obstacle as I understand it is the time and effort it takes to achieve that recognition. Apparently this can be very large indeed, and therefore, I for one, cannot be involved to a significant extent. Perhaps there is a volunteer? :) Cheers, Syd. ------ firstname.lastname@example.org ,-_|\ Professor Sydney R. Hall / \ Director, Crystallography Centre Fx: 61(8)9380 1118 --> *_,-._/ Deputy Executive Dean of Science Ph: 61(8)9380 2725 v University of Western Australia www.crystal.uwa.edu.au Nedlands 6907, AUSTRALIA.
Copyright © International Union of CrystallographyIUCr Webmaster