Tuesday, 14th June, 16:30 Central European Summer Time (Copenhagen)
Hangout Link: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/j72qwlvegiojjpt3a36pfhow5ua
Present: AB, AF, EW, HJB, MK, PJ, TSR
The two issues itemised above are resolved by the general agreement on being permissive with base classes. That is while base classes aim to cover most use cases, they don’t list all acceptable groups and fields. In order to be able to progress the standard additional data is acceptable. Validation tools should not treat such additional items not covered by a base class as errors, but notes or warnings. Users should encouraged to find the best defined location for their information, but we understand there is not a defined place for all possible data.
This may require clarification in the manual.
Related to that: cnxvalidate currently does no validation for files that do not (claim to) conform to an application definition. Just checking the use of base classes is another important use case. MK opened a ticket to investigate.
Issue 330 (definitions): Comments left on the ticket. Partial action required at most. Could be resolved at the next NIAC.
http://medsbio.org/meetings/BNL_May16_HDRMX_Meeting.html
PJ shared his latest python project: http://punx.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contents.html
It does similar things to cnxvalidate plus additional tooling.