[NeXus-committee] Validation: Against which application definition? Ignoring base classes?

[Joachim Wuttke]

I withdraw this comment

> ... the problem arises
> how to know from a given file which application definition
> it pretends to follow. I think there is only one clean solution:
> the name of the application definition must be stored in each
> data file. E.g. in form of an NXroot attribute @application_definition.

since I discovered that application definitions tend to have
a field entry/definition that satisfies my request.

In https://github.com/nexusformat/definitions/issues/316 I just
propose to change a word in the explanation.

> (4) A few weeks ago we clarified that base classes member
> lists can be extended (by application definitions, and by
> any single NeXus application, if I understood correctly).
> With member lists being neither exclusive nor obligatory,
> base classes turn out to be no more than recommendations
> to application definition writers. Data file validation
> tools will have to ignore the base class specs altogether.

I maintain this request for comment: Base classes are no more
than recommendations to application definition writers - right?

- Joachim

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5013 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.nexusformat.org/pipermail/nexus-committee/attachments/20140920/4bf3cdfb/attachment.p7s>