NXmx: add NXsource and make name in NXsource and NXinstrument required

[phyy-nx]

From HDRMX meeting at ACA 2019.

Co-authored-by: Graeme Winter graeme.winter@gmail.com

[prjemian]

@phyy-nx: This PR is languishing. Should we merge without review from @yayahb?

[yayahjb]

Dear Pete, We had an HDRMX meeting in Covington and Aaron Brewster and Graeme Winter were delegated to compose the necessary agreed to changes for NXmx to implement the consensus of the meeting, which has strong MX community support. This is part of that consensus. I am happy with the idea of the name field for NXsource and for NXinstrument being mandatory in NXmx. The incomplete part has been whether the shortname attribute should or should not also be mandatory in NXmx. Personally I think it should with a default value equal to the value of the name field, but I would not like to hold up the agreement on name being mandatory while people consider that minor side issue. Regards, Herbert

…

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:27 PM Pete R Jemian ***@***.***> wrote: @phyy-nx <https://github.com/phyy-nx>: This PR is languishing. Should we merge without review from @yayahb? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#669?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABB6EAM3A6WTHSCXIB5FZY3QBYMM5A5CNFSM4IF2SSRKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD27H3RI#issuecomment-515800517>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABB6EAIKW257OMZTPFQ36CTQBYMM5ANCNFSM4IF2SSRA> .

[prjemian]

@yayahb: Thanks!

[mkoennecke]

I agree with Herbert that making the names of the instrument and the source mandatory makes sense.

I have issues with the short_name however. First of all, that is a new attribute, IMHO, not seen before. Then which name do you really want? For example HRPT at SINQ can be described as:

• High Resolution Powder diffracTometer
• HRPT
  The first is the long name. Next to no one knows that. In the case of HRPT it was a byproduct of inventing the acronym. Moreover the combination HRPT together with the source name SINQ fully identifies both instrument and source.

Thus I think the short name for both source and instrument should be the content of the name fields. The extended name (which may not even exist for some instruments) could be an attribute long_name. Though I do not see that it adds value except for understanding convoluted language use in instrument naming.

[yayahjb]

The short name is already an attribute the name both for NXsource and for NXinstrument. * name*: (optional) NX_CHAR <http://download.nexusformat.org/doc/html/nxdl-types.html#nx-char> Name of source * @short_name*: (optional) NX_CHAR <http://download.nexusformat.org/doc/html/nxdl-types.html#nx-char> short name for source, perhaps the acronym *name*: (optional) NX_CHAR <http://download.nexusformat.org/sphinx/nxdl-types.html#nx-char> Name of instrument *@short_name*: (optional) NX_CHAR <http://download.nexusformat.org/sphinx/nxdl-types.html#nx-char> short name for instrument, perhaps the acronym Each facility should call itself whatever it wants to call itself, If HRPT want to call itself HRPT or call itself High Resolution Powder diffracTometer or call itself something else, it should not be up to us to decide. "name" means "name", the identification of the instrument or the source that the proprieters of that instrument or source chose, whether it be short, long or something in between. That is why I suggested the the short name default to the same string as the name. If the proprieters do want to speciify some other short name they should be free to do so, even if in some cases it turns out to be longer than the name. They can explain why or smile knowingly or just do it, not us. Please, I believe in standards, but not in pointless policing of harmless variations in their use. We really do need for people to put a few essential names in their metadata. The less we say about what they should choose for their own names, the better.

…

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 11:06 AM mkoennecke ***@***.***> wrote: I agree with Herbert that making the names of the instrument and the source mandatory makes sense. I have issues with the short_name however. First of all, that is a new attribute, IMHO, not seen before. Then which name do you really want? For example HRPT at SINQ can be described as: - High Resolution Powder diffracTometer - HRPT The first is the long name. Next to no one knows that. In the case of HRPT it was a byproduct of inventing the acronym. Moreover the combination HRPT together with the source name SINQ fully identifies both instrument and source. Thus I think the short name for both source and instrument should be the content of the name fields. The extended name (which may not even exist for some instruments) could be an attribute long_name. Though I do not see that it adds value except for understanding convoluted language use in instrument naming. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#669?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABB6EAIA54LMVFIFMHBRA7TQB4BQVA5CNFSM4IF2SSRKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD3BAG6Q#issuecomment-516031354>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABB6EAMHQLBT4QLDLMJG43DQB4BQVANCNFSM4IF2SSRA> .

[mkoennecke]

Alright then, I overlooked the short_name in NXsource. No more objections

[yayahjb]

If there are no further objections, I would suggest this pull request be executed. -- Herbert

…

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:59 AM mkoennecke ***@***.***> wrote: Alright then, I overlooked the short_name in NXsource. No more objections — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#669?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABB6EAJWF2OF2R4C7LQEMXTQB7KD3A5CNFSM4IF2SSRKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD3C3WMI#issuecomment-516274993>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABB6EAM5OHVQ7TCATZ562QLQB7KD3ANCNFSM4IF2SSRA> .

[phyy-nx]

Thanks folks. My intent had been to go over this in the next Telco, but if there are no further objections then maybe just merging it is fine. I'll merge it Wednesday, end of day PST?