Re: Comments on CIF core changes for 2.3

[Howard Flack <Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch>]

IDB> The values of this flag were taken directly from the original core
IDB> dictionary.  I merely broke a single refinement_flag item into
three
IDB> separate items, so there was no discussion about whether these
flags were
IDB> appropriate.

 Curt's suggestions are good.

> The DDL provides the opportunity to point out that a particular item has
> been replaced by another item (or that it conveys the same information in
> another form).  It does not, apparently, provide for a message to say that
> the present item replaces an earlier and discontinued data item.  Thus
> when a discontinued item that was originally defined in an earlier version
> of the dictionary is also included (for completeness) in a later version
> that includes its replacement, the presence of a _related_item field
> points the user to the new name that should be used.  The DDL provides no
> way to indicate that the present item replaces one that was previously
> used to convey the same information.

 As mind-bending as the Quiconque Vult   (sorry about my misspelling of
the title of this admirable text).


IDB> I will remove the offending word.

 Don't. It is not offensive.


H.