Consider renaming x/y/z to plane/row/col in the 3D structure tensor example

[jni]

Description

I didn't find any discussion in #5012 about axis naming, but to me it seems a bit muddled... We normally would call the vertical axis Y and the horizonal axis X, but in the 3D structure tensor they are inverted.

Since we are striving to use planes/rows/columns throughout the library, I'm wondering @mkcor @grlee77 @rfezzani whether you would support changing the wording in that example to use that nomenclature. Happy to provide the PR for this if there is consensus.

[rfezzani]

The wording change is fine by me 😉.

[mkcor]

@jni in that example, I intended the x/y 'inversion,' as made explicit with code line

labels={'x': 'Y', 'y': 'X', 'color': 'intensity'}

but I'm definitely fine with replacing z/y/x by plane/row/col.

I 'inherited' the dataset from #4946 where I had derived that

Dimensions are provided in the following order: (z, y, x, c).

n_plane, n_Y, n_X, n_chan = data.shape

see rendered (not yet merged) tutorial here. Right now I can't remember what convinced me of the above -- @GenevieveBuckley would you have a clue by any chance? I agree it's confusing, because (z, y, x) would not be a directly oriented orthogonal triad...

[GenevieveBuckley]

I don't know, sorry @mkcor

[mkcor]

@GenevieveBuckley no worries! @jni I don't remember what crossed my mind and got me into a self-convincing loop... Anyhow, sorry for the confusion, I fixed it with #5282 (and 9656e41). I agree it's important to keep the plane/row/col[/channel] convention, consistently with the tutorial introducing 3D image processing.

@GenevieveBuckley would you like me to use the #5282 opportunity to remove the explicit mention of your authorship, as in your code review? Thanks!

[GenevieveBuckley]

@GenevieveBuckley would you like me to use the #5282 opportunity to remove the explicit mention of your authorship, as in your code review? Thanks!

Sure, go ahead