get_neonet()

[zoometh]

We have just completed collection of a new dataset, named NeoNet Atl, for Europe's South Atlantic river basins. This dataset complements the (first) NeoNet dataset focused on the river basins of the north-central and western Mediterranean (see here). NeoNet Atl dataset has exactly the same structure as the first NeoNet dataset already collected by get_neonet(). Is it worth creating a new function (get_neonet_atl()) or updating get_neonet() to collect both datasets?

[nevrome]

Hey @zoometh - good question. Maybe radon could serve as an example here. radon and radonb are also structurally identical and come from the same team. For them we had from the beginning two getter functions. So I think we could the same for neonet and neonet_atl. What do you think?

[zoometh]

@nevrome sorry for my late reply: Yes indeed, I'll prepare a get_neonetb().

[nevrome]

Hey Thomas, I looked into the new setup more closely now and think the naming is not ideal. I think what I failed to communicate properly is that radonb is not just "version b" of radon, but a separate database for the bronze age. So the b refers to that. I think we should therefore not distinguish neonet and neonetb, but neonet and neonet???, where ??? is up to you.

My understanding is, that get_neonet() now downloads a new version of the old dataset from the North Central-Western Mediterranean Basin, whereas get_neonetb downloads the first version of a new dataset from the Southern European Atlantic Coast (https://digitallib.unipi.it/it/raccolta/The-NeoNetAtl-dataset/). I thus suggest to rename neonetb to neonetatl as originally suggested by you, before I release a new version of c14bazAAR.

What do you think?

[zoometh]

Hi @nevrome. Yes, neonetalt would match perfectly

[zoometh]

Hi @nevrome, you can rename neonetb to neonetatl if you prefer. As you have noted, the distinction between the two datasets lies in their spatial extents, not their temporal extent (similar to radon).

[nevrome]

Done. I will now make a release :+1: