{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/canSAS-org/NXcanSAS_examples/issues/2","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/canSAS-org/NXcanSAS_examples","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/canSAS-org/NXcanSAS_examples/issues/2/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/canSAS-org/NXcanSAS_examples/issues/2/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/canSAS-org/NXcanSAS_examples/issues/2/events","html_url":"https://github.com/canSAS-org/NXcanSAS_examples/issues/2","id":164300066,"number":2,"title":"Should Qz really be mandatory?","user":{"login":"smk78","id":10938679,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/10938679?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/smk78","html_url":"https://github.com/smk78","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/smk78/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/smk78/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/smk78/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/smk78/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/smk78/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/smk78/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/smk78/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/smk78/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/smk78/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2016-07-07T12:43:49Z","updated_at":"2016-07-13T19:32:31Z","closed_at":"2016-07-13T19:32:31Z","body":"On 7/5/2016 at 8:45 Adrian Rennie wrote: \r\n\r\nI agree with this idea that Qz should not be required.  Indeed my \r\nrecollection of the discussions about canSAS treated data were that \r\nfields that are obligatory should be kept to a minimum although one \r\nmight have recommendations.  The thought of preserving and then \r\ndecompressing on read, large numbers of arrays of zeroes for multiple \r\ndata sets is not really what one should be insisting upon.\r\n\r\nBest regards, Adrian\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nOn 05/07/2016 at 14:33, Andrew Jackson wrote:\r\n\r\nI think implicit Qz=0 is what most of us had assumed - especially given\r\nthe examples we worked up in Uppsala.\r\n\r\nThat doesn’t break the Q definition and is current practice in existing\r\ndata representations.\r\n\r\nSimilarly, if one were to represent specular reflectivity data in this\r\nconstruct (say as part of a GISANS data set) then you might need only\r\none component given, with it implicit that the others components were\r\nzero (though that is probably out of scope and muddying the waters).\r\n\r\nAndrew\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nOn 5 July 2016 at 13:27 Pete Jemian wrote:\r\n\r\nI like this answer as it is more practical.  But it is not consistent\r\nwith the result of our discussions a few years back.  This page\r\ndocuments the result of that discussion clearly regarding the two\r\nrepresentations of Q:\r\n\r\nhttp://cansas-org.github.io/canSAS2012/basics.html#definition-of\r\n\r\nCan we agree now that (Qx, Qy) is acceptable with the assumption of Qz=0?\r\n\r\nPete\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nOn 7/5/2016 at 6:26 AM Tobias Richter wrote:\r\n\r\nThat's not the idea, unless you know that's correct. Since in my\r\n(admittedly limited) experience Qz is not often calibrated, we should\r\nnot require that. I don't think it's in all our examples either.\r\n\r\nRegards\r\nTobias\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nOn 5 Jul 2016 at 11:09 a.m. Steve King wrote:\r\n\r\nSo we just add a Qz array with zeroes?\r\n\r\nSteve\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nOn 05 July 2016 at 01:10 Pete Jemian wrote:\r\n\r\non the 2D NXcanSAS...h5 data file, need a Qz array to go with Qx and Qy\r\n\r\nWe have agreed that either |Q| (such as in the 1-D case) or full Q\r\nvector are the two choices.\r\n\r\nMy quick overview says, otherwise OK\r\n\r\nPete\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nOn 7/4/2016 at 5:33 AM Steve King wrote:\r\n\r\nI have uploaded a new Mantid NXcanSAS test example (_v3) to Pete’s new\r\nGitHub repo\r\n\r\nhttps://github.com/canSAS-org/NXcanSAS_examples/tree/master/Mantid\r\n\r\nThe fixes include:\r\n1. Introduced canSAS_class\r\n2. Provided NX_class with equivalent class names. This attribute lives\r\nin parallel to the canSAS_class one.\r\n3. Set dates to ISO-8601 format\r\n4. Change the Q_indices attribute to be an int array 5. SDD which is\r\npart of the detectors is now a floating point instead of a string 6.\r\nchange |unit|to |units|\r\n\r\nAs before, comments welcome!\r\n\r\nSteve"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/canSAS-org/NXcanSAS_examples/issues/comments/232462121","html_url":"https://github.com/canSAS-org/NXcanSAS_examples/issues/2#issuecomment-232462121","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/canSAS-org/NXcanSAS_examples/issues/2","id":232462121,"user":{"login":"prjemian","id":2279984,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2279984?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/prjemian","html_url":"https://github.com/prjemian","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/prjemian/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/prjemian/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/prjemian/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/prjemian/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/prjemian/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/prjemian/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/prjemian/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/prjemian/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/prjemian/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-07-13T19:32:30Z","updated_at":"2016-07-13T19:32:30Z","body":"\r\nOn 7/5/2016 9:09 AM, stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk wrote:\r\n> So does that mean the _v3.h5 file I posted yesterday is ok? Thou all art content? :-)\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nOn 7/11/2016 5:59 AM, stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk wrote:\r\n> Is it agreed that in fact Qz is optional and therefore the latest version of an NXcanSAS file written by Mantid conforms to the standard?\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nOn 7/11/2016 6:15 AM, Jemian, Pete R. wrote:\r\n> That was the consensus.  If the data is trivialand its default is\r\n> obvious, such as Qz=0, omitting it is fine.\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nOn 7/11/2016 6:36 AM, stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk wrote:\r\n> Ok. I will have the Mantid ticket closed. And update the SasView one\r\n> (for something to read NXcanSAS!).\r\n\r\n---\r\n\r\nOn 7/11/2016 8:12 AM, Paul Butler wrote:\r\n> I believe the point is that forcing incorrect information to be written\r\n> is wrong.  I believe most SAS instruments do not in fact know the exact\r\n> Qz but assume it is \"close\" to zero.  explicitly writing a number\r\n> implies you know the exact value. Omitting means assume \"close enough to\r\n> zero\" for government work :-)  ... at least that is how I understood it\r\n> and I fully agree that it is much worse to state a (somewhat) incorrect\r\n> value explicitly as it implies you know more than you do (a question of\r\n> significant figures if you will :-). "}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"prjemian"}}