[NeXus-committee] Questionaire

[stephen.cottrell at stfc.ac.uk]

Questionaire from Steve Cottrell (ISIS)

* Facility name
                Muons (representing the Muon community at ISIS, RIKEN-RAL, PSI, TRIUMF and J-PARC)

* Number of files/beamlines/instruments producing NeXus files
                Three beamlines produce NeXus files at ISIS (and have done since ~2001). RIKEN-RAL produce NeXus files. None of the other facilities write NeXus files, although PSI are working on file conversion to NeXus.

* Number of files/beamlines/instruments producing NeXus files in 2 years time
                Unlikely to change, although there is likely to be further work at PSI and ISIS to use the agreed Instrument Definition to establish a 'common exchange format' (work supported by EU grant). PSI are likely to use file converters to generate these files from an 'in-house' RAW file format, while the exchange definition will form a subset of the present ISIS Instrument Definition.

* Barriers found for increasing NeXus use
                Very strong preference for using an 'in-house' RAW format - keep local control of software, avoid external dependencies (NAPI/HDF) and enforced change in the future.
                Need for a common file format (for muons) not seen as essential and issue of portability considered best addressed using file converters and a 'common exchange format'.
                Features offered by NeXus perhaps not seen as essential (e.g. comprehensive metadata, common Application Definitions, etc) so why spend the time understanding/moving to NeXus?
                Inertia?

* Priorities for the NeXus community should be
                A stronger link between facilities (stakeholders?) and NIAC (perhaps through subscription) may be helpful for increasing uptake of NeXus.



-- 
Scanned by iCritical.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nexusformat.org/pipermail/nexus-committee/attachments/20120919/468f1e93/attachment.html>