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.
Copyright © International Union of CrystallographyIUCr Webmaster