[NeXus-committee] NeXus definitions tidy up and versioning
nha at ansto.gov.au
Mon Jan 22 11:59:31 GMT 2007
The resolutions as I put in my notes from the Berkeley meeting (not minuted)
1. All base classes are ratified
2. All base classes require 'housekeeping' (ACTION: technical subcommittee)
3. All base classes to be tagged 2.0 after housekeeping (ACTION: technical
4. All ratified instrument definitions to be tagged 2.0 i.e. NeXus version
include base classes and instrument definitions.
Removing NX prefix:
I second the proposal.
I would like to see the proposal extended to done before 2.0 is released.
I move that the naming proposal goes to vote and is incorporated in task #2
I second the proposal and move that it goes to vote.
This is not minuted on the site.
I agree it should be consistent. Note that udunits uses American spelling.
The proposal could read,
Language should be consistent, and use the w3c convention
lang="en-US" or lang="en-GB".
The default to be "en-US".
Let's run a discussion then vote.
Bragg could help with the 'housekeeping' by programmatically generating
NeXus classes with validation to ensure consistency.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akeroyd, FA (Freddie) [mailto:F.A.Akeroyd at rl.ac.uk]
> Sent: Friday, 19 January 2007 11:18 PM
> To: nexus-committee at nexusformat.org
> Subject: [NeXus-committee] NeXus definitions tidy up and versioning
> At the last NIAC it was decided that all versions of base
> class and instrument definitions that existed prior to the
> NIAC would be called version 1.0 and those ratified at the
> NIAC 2.0 I'm currently trying to tidy up the site and
> implement this, but have come up with a few issues.
> Base Classes
> I believe all base classes are now in subversion and the
> subversion file is referenced directly from the Wiki via the
> "nxformat" Mediawiki extension. Were all base classes
> (implicitly) ratified at the NIAC and should now be tagged at
> 2.0, or are some still at 1.0? If so, which ones? A full list
> of XML files in subversion is available at:
> BTW I have seen references to both NXcharacterizations and
> NXcharacterization in instrument definitions
> - I think a class name should always be the singular
> - Also, didn't we agree on European spelling so it should
> actually be renamed to NXcharacterisation ?
> Instrument Definitions
> http://www.nexusformat.org/Instruments has the definitions
> broken down into ratified, proposed and planned. For those
> that are ratified, I will tag what existed prior to
> ratification 1.0 and that after ratification 2.0. What should
> be done about the other definitions mentioned on the page -
> nothing I guess for the moment?
> I have a question/proposal with regard to definition naming
> ... I think we should either drop the NX prefix entirely from
> definition names or use another prefix e.g. NXDFN or NXDEF My
> reason is to avoid potential confusion/conflict between
> instrument definitions and base classes. I have added some
> instrument definitions to subversion, but will hold off on
> the rest until after some discussion on the naming issue.
> Finally, if there are any definitions/other content on either
> the old Swiki (http://www.nexus.anl.gov:8080/NeXus) or the
> old web site
> (http://www.nexus.anl.gov/) that is missing from the new
> nexusformat.org site could you please let me know. It would
> be good to turn these sites off soon as having multiple
> locations just leads to confusion. Also the old Swiki seems
> to have been hacked and turned into an advert for "online casino"...
> NeXus-committee mailing list
> NeXus-committee at nexusformat.org
More information about the NeXus-committee