[NeXus-committee] obsolescence and evolution: NeXus needs a historic dimension

[Peterson, Peter F.]

Event files are actually a success story
https://github.com/nexusformat/definitions/blob/master/contributed_definiti
ons/NXsnsevent.nxdl.xml and
https://github.com/nexusformat/definitions/blob/master/base_classes/NXevent
_data.nxdl.xml .

While the definition is hiding the ³contributed_definitions² area, it was
written by NIAC members (in 2011) with modifications to make data fields
be usable in muon measurements as well as the TOF neutrons that it was
created for. Both SNS and ISIS write out event data that validate using
the definition and can be read by the same code without specialization.
NeXus does have sharable files across instruments and facilities, even if
it is for ³just for raw² data.

P^2

On 7/16/14, 9:05 AM, "Pete Jemian" <prjemian at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>On 7/16/2014 7:13 AM, Joachim Wuttke wrote:
>> Anyway, formal validity is perhaps a necessary, but certainly not a
>> sufficient condition for interoperability.
>
>This is actually a goal for any NeXus application definition.  A NeXus
>data file that is valid against the relevant application definition
>meets the structural criteria declared sufficient for interoperability.
>
>Perhaps another measure of interoperability is the data content.  The
>data might be arranged in a NeXus data file with valid structure but
>useless content for the processing step (such as no valid range of data
>satisfying the Guinier approximation in small-angle scattering or no
>intensity peaks for powder diffraction analysis).  Standardization of
>data content or quality is not addressed by NeXus.
>
>Pete
>
>_______________________________________________
>NeXus-committee mailing list
>NeXus-committee at nexusformat.org
>http://lists.nexusformat.org/mailman/listinfo/nexus-committee