[IUCr Home Page] [CIF Home Page]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Dictionary version numbering



A point that has arisen from the proposal for maintaining the mmCIF
dictionary (see COMCIFS circular 76) is the style for numbering
subsequent versions of the dictionaries - Paula and Helen are proposing that
the next release of the mmCIF dictionary with enhanced content should be
version 2.0. I have taken the view with the Core dictionary that the first
(1991) release differs from the current release not only in content, but
also in formalism - DDL version "0" versus DDL 1.4, and that this is the
primary reason for having different major version numbers (i.e. core CIF
versions 1.0 and 2.0.1). Hence I anticipated that the next core release would
be version 2.1, and not 3.0. However, it makes sense that we progress the
versioning according to similar principles across our growing family of
dictionaries. I have no objections to increasing the major version number
with each addition of significant content (other than the slight worry I
have when I use the emacs editor version 19.16 that the authors could
surely have got it right before now!), but I'd like to hear what other
members think.



[Send comment to list secretary]
[Reply to list (subscribers only)]


Copyright © International Union of Crystallography

IUCr Webmaster