Replies: 3 comments 1 reply
-
Would it be an idea to get inputs from the IDS's on this as well? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
Also, regarding easyBragg, I think I would prefer a slightly more descriptive name, such as easyBraggfit (easyBraggFit?) or easyBraggimaging (easyBraggImaging?), to better specifiy what the software actually does. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
-
Agreed on: Still in discussions: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Spectroscopy
View 1:
Naming it
EasySpectroscopy
would probably be a good idea.Even if we only start with QENS, we can still envision/plan for adding more techniques: like spin or INS.
The naming is straightforward, avoids acronyms, and follows the
Easy<Technique>
pattern ofEasyDiffraction
andEasyReflectometry
.View 2:
The analysis of QENS data is very different from spin or INS.
With QENS, the model is a set of simple functions.
With spin spectroscopy the model is atomistic.
With INS the model is both atomistic structure and phonon spectrum.
The workflow of EasyApp would get rather muddled and complex if we wanted to allow all the possible models to be defined in a single app.
Also, QENS and INS are well-accepted and understood names of sub-techniques.
Imaging
Similar discussion needs to be started about imaging.
Here, we are going to provide analysis for Bragg Edge imaging only, which is based on the atomistic structure of the system.
However, this is not the only thing neutron imaging is used for. Programs like MuhRec do tomography reconstruction analysis - a task not suitable for EasyApp workflow (or is it?)
One could claim calling a module
EasyImaging
is therefore misleading, if the only analysis it can do is Bragg Edge fitting.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions