[NeXus-tech] Updated draft concordance

[yayahjb]

Minor changes for the past 2 days have been posted in:

https://sites.google.com/site/nexuscbf/mapping-draft/Concordance_Summary_27Apr13.pdf 

<https://sites.google.com/site/nexuscbf/mapping-draft/Concordance_Summary_27Apr13.pdf>
to handle mapping the axis poise information in attributes of fields in 
NeXus.

On 4/25/13 9:53 PM, yayahjb wrote:
> After today's discussions, I have posted the following:
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/nexuscbf/mapping-draft/Concordance_Summary_25Apr13.pdf 
> <https://sites.google.com/site/nexuscbf/mapping-draft/Concordance_Summary_25Apr13.pdf>
and
> https://sites.google.com/site/nexuscbf/mapping-draft/PAD_Draft_Appdef_25Apr13.pdf 
> <https://sites.google.com/site/nexuscbf/mapping-draft/PAD_Draft_Appdef_25Apr13.pdf>
>
> The second document is an extract from the first for the convenience 
> of those who
> are only interested in the development of Dectris application definition.
>
> There will be some issues to discuss relating to the yesterday's 
> document and these
> documents and the Dectris application definition in the next NIAC 
> Telco.  The rest
> of the document has not changed.
>
> On 4/24/13 10:12 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>> You will find a PDF of a  draft imgCIF/CBF NeXus concordance at
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/nexuscbf/mapping-draft/Concordance_Summary_24Apr13.pdf 
>>
>>
>> This draft maps almost all of the imgCIF dictionary to NeXus, almost 
>> all of
>> the NeXus base classes to CIF, and proposes PAD application 
>> definitions to
>> support the Eiger in a manner intended to be reasonably consistent 
>> with the
>> Dectris proposal.
>>
>> Comments, corrections and suggestions much appreciated.
>>
>> Even though we are up to 113 pages, there is much more to do, 
>> especially in
>> expanding the imgCIF dictionary  and/or checking the PDB extensions 
>> dictionary
>> to align with the rich detail in the NeXus classes.  The mapping will be
>> simplest making use of CIF2 tuples and/or lists to handle non-binary 
>> array
>> values, but it appears that there is no real impediment to doing the 
>> mapping
>> between DDL2 CIF1 without array values and NeXus as well.
>>
>> If there are no serious objections to the approach being followed, I 
>> will continue
>> with the NeXus application definitions and coding CBFlib against this 
>> document.
>>
>>
>