Le 21:18 19/08/2005, vous avez écrit:
>Carlo, Thanks for the offer of help!
>
>Dave, thanks for the suggestions, I think those are all good.
>
>In fact, I think none of this is that hard to do, but it will
>take some time. For what it's worth, I think the data should be
>stored in a 'proper' relational database, if for no other reason
>than to make it easier and faster to search. It will also make
>many of the 'fancier' features (user comments) easier to
>implement.
I may be just a nuisance, but wouldn't it be interesting to contact people
currently developping mineralogical databases (e.g., from the Mineralogical
Society of America) to have some insight on how their database is organized?
That may save a lot of time.
>At this point, I think the most immediate need is (as Dave
>mentioned yesterday) to identify a reasonable format for the
>data at both upload time and at download time. For upload, we'd
>certainly want a web form where fields could be filled in or
>parsed from a file following a 'Standard Data File Format'.
I think the simplest way is to separate the "general information"
field from the "data field". The general information may be entered
as a standard fill-in submission page, and this information would then
be entered as commented lines (e;g., startting with "#") at the beginning
of the download files (pardon me if you think this is obvious!).
Among the information to be added, I suggest a few more technical hints, like:
- Synchrotron/beamline/station (or "calculated")
- Crystal (e;g., Si(111))
- detection mode
- raw spectrum/average of xxx spectra
Other questions:
- Is it advisable to accept only "raw" data (including glitches), or will
some kind of preprocessing be allowed?
- Would it be advisable to rank the spectra according to their quality
(as for the powder diffraction files)?
Best regards,
Michel
--
Michel Schlegel
Commissariat à l'énergie atomique
CEN de Saclay, DEN/DPC/SCP/LRSI
Bat 391 - Piece 205B
F91 191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France
Ph: +33 (0)1 69 08 93 84
Fax: +33 (0)1 69 08 54 11
