Use of correct names for non-visual stimuli

[DieterLa]

The app is using the terms "chloropic", "cyanopic", "erythropic" for the cone-responses.
These terms are not as defined in CIE S 026.
Correct would be "S-cone-opic", "M-cone-opic", "L-cone-opic" as defined in chapter 3.1.
rhodopic and melanopic is correct.

There is a high risk of mixing up with the definitions in Lucas' paper "Measuring light in the melanopsin age", when using the above cited terms "chloropic" ...
Even the action spectra are slightly different, what can cause deviations of up to 10%.

Please use the correct wordings for the cone-responses and make sure to apply the correct action spectra as defined in CIE S 026

[DieterLa]

in this context I would also drop abbreviations like for example EEDI for erythropic equivalent daylight illuminance.
The same for chloropic or cyanopic.
Other abbreviations not used in standards have already been applied by some people, e.g. MEEI for melanopic equivalent equi-energy illuminance. This could become too chaotic.
I would prefer to keep it clear as defined in CIE S 026.
L-cone-opic equivalent daylight illuminance or L-cone-opic EDI, maybe L-cone-EDI, but not L-EDI or too simplified abbreviations.

[JZauner]

Hi Dieter, thanks for all your input. Right now I´m going through them one by one for sorting, but I will only be able to address it once I jump back into programming in October.

Just to make it clear - Spectran uses the action spectra from the CIE S 026 toolbox.

As for the naming scheme - I´m a bit sad that the logic for the five types is all over the place (from pigment based naming to wavelength-sensitivity based naming), but I get where you are coming from in terms of consistency, so I will change this. Do you have suggestions for the German naming scheme? M-cone-opisch? M-Zapfen-opisch? Doesn´t exactly roll of the tongue...

[JZauner]

Maybe you can also weigh in on whether the abbreviation should be MEDI or mEDI. The latter of which I see commonly used, but I don´t see the point, because then why not write meDI?
In the CIE S 026 it is written with all small caps alpha-opic equivalent daylight (D65) illuminance. So, no help there. And it is not as if EDI are a thing outside the alpha-opic world, ist it?
What do you/would you prefer?

[DieterLa]

As the German DIN/TS 5031-100 does not define the terms for the cone or rod sensitivities, I would propose to keep the English names as used in CIE S 026 L- , M- and S-cone-opic also for the results on the German page. Otherwise a still undefined German translation needed to be used. L- , M- and S-cone-opisch should be uncritical and possible. But L- , M- and S-Zapfen would in my opinion not be reasonable, because the M, L and S are abbreviations for English terms. Even if these combinations are in use. Also Blau- Grün- and Rotzapfen are used. But I would avoid all these. BR Dieter

…

______________________________________ sent by my mobile phone +49 151 61 666 362 Dieter Lang R&D & Innovation Expert Human Centric Lighting Ledvance GmbH Parkring 33 85748 Garching Deutschland/Germany Mobile: +49 151 61 666 362(preferred calling option) Phone : +49 89 780673 277 (new number for extension!) E-mail : ***@***.******@***.***> Check out our information on the BIOLUX Human Centric Lighting system https://www.ledvance.com/professional/products/product-stories/human-centric-lighting/index.jsp LEDVANCE GmbH: Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Yan Luo; Managing Directors: Qinghuan Sun, Shi-Ting Chu, Tingfeng Mei; Registered office: Garching near Munich; Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 220074; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 30638372

________________________________ Von: Johannes Zauner ***@***.***> Gesendet: Friday, September 15, 2023 9:15:39 AM An: LiTGde/Spectran ***@***.***> Cc: Lang, Dieter ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***> Betreff: Re: [LiTGde/Spectran] Use of correct names for non-visual stimuli (Issue #3) Sie erhalten nicht oft eine E-Mail von ***@***.*** Erfahren Sie, warum dies wichtig ist<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Hi Dieter, thanks for all your input. Right now I´m going through them one by one for sorting, but I will only be able to address it once I jump back into programming in October. Just to make it clear - Spectran uses the action spectra from the CIE S 026 toolbox. As for the naming scheme - I´m a bit sad that the logic for the five types is all over the place (from pigment based naming to wavelength-sensitivity based naming), but I get where you are coming from in terms of consistency, so I will change this. Do you have suggestions for the German naming scheme? M-cone-opisch? M-Zapfen-opisch? Doesn´t exactly roll of the tongue... — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#3 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BCG2MUU4C2OYVJIKN5UC2MTX2P6BXANCNFSM6AAAAAA4C4MYEU>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[DieterLa]

The abbreviation MEDI has been defined in the German standard DIN/TS 5031-100. MEDI is not defined in CIE S 026. There the general term α-opic EDI is defined, what would require “melanopic EDI” to be 100% consistent. But meanwhile various versions have been used in other publications, e.g. mEDI or mel EDI. Also MEDI has been used in international publications and is meanwhile in the common language. In 3.9, Note 4 of CIE S 026 you find: For example, in the case that α denotes melanopsin (index α =mel), melanopic EDI denotes the melanopic equivalent daylight (D65) illuminance. This note is not even consistent, because if α =mel, then the correct term would be “mel-opic” - of course nonsense. The challenge is to remain clear and understandable without risks to be misunderstood. New abbreviations like EEDI or MEER have been introduced for an Equi-Energy spectrum as reference instead of Daylight (D65). So there is a high risk of creating misunderstandings when introducing new abbreviations. As EDI is defined in CIE S 026, this is safe to use. In my opinion also MEDI is safe, but to be 100% clear, in an English version, I would use mel EDI or melanopic EDI. For anything else, I would not use abbreviations. Neither for L, M, S-cone-opic and also not for other reference illuminants. Otherwise you need to add a glossary or index to make clear what the abbreviations are used for. BR Dieter

…

______________________________________ sent by my mobile phone +49 151 61 666 362 Dieter Lang R&D & Innovation Expert Human Centric Lighting Ledvance GmbH Parkring 33 85748 Garching Deutschland/Germany Mobile: +49 151 61 666 362(preferred calling option) Phone : +49 89 780673 277 (new number for extension!) E-mail : ***@***.******@***.***> Check out our information on the BIOLUX Human Centric Lighting system https://www.ledvance.com/professional/products/product-stories/human-centric-lighting/index.jsp LEDVANCE GmbH: Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Yan Luo; Managing Directors: Qinghuan Sun, Shi-Ting Chu, Tingfeng Mei; Registered office: Garching near Munich; Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 220074; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 30638372

________________________________ Von: Johannes Zauner ***@***.***> Gesendet: Friday, September 15, 2023 10:36:29 AM An: LiTGde/Spectran ***@***.***> Cc: Lang, Dieter ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***> Betreff: Re: [LiTGde/Spectran] Use of correct names for non-visual stimuli (Issue #3) Maybe you can also weigh in on whether the abbreviation should be MEDI or mEDI. The latter of which I see commonly used, but I don´t see the point, because then why not write meDI? In the CIE S 026 it is written with all small caps alpha-opic equivalent daylight (D65) illuminance. So, no help there. And it is not as if EDI are a thing outside the alpha-opic world, ist it? What do you/would you prefer? - Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#3 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BCG2MUVRC4ZRDYNE3FQG3F3X2QHQ3ANCNFSM6AAAAAA4C4MYEU>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[JZauner]

Made the change. It will go online in Version 1.0.0 of Spectran