Changes between Version 5 and Version 6 of NumSim


Ignore:
Timestamp:
09/03/06 13:00:27 (14 years ago)
Author:
lawrence
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • NumSim

    v5 v6  
    4141[[TicketQuery(Keywords~=NumSim&Milestone=BETA)]]  
    4242 
     43==== Other Issues ==== 
    4344 
    44  * (Maybe) Do we want sequences or any in most of the complex groups? (Does order matter?) Make life easy for editors. 
     45Generally these are things that might be issues, that are not raised as tickets against any milestone (yet). 
     46 
     47 1. Following response 2.3. Given that model has another understanding, in for example, geology, should we use a different word for model, e.g.: simulator? 
     48 1. Should we suck any pages we link to down into the archive as copies? (This is a curation issue). 
     49 
     50 
    4551 * (Maybe) Follow up on Response 1.2, and consider whether !ModelComponents such as "Atmosphere" need to be complex types, so that the software searching can distinguish between hydrostatic/non-hydrostatic and wet/dry, for example. 
    46     * Curation Issue: Should we suck any pages we link to down into the archive as copies? 
     52 
    4753 * (Discussion) Should we have the initial conditions as attributes (subelements) of the Model rather than as attributes of the simulation. This would help in some regards, but might break the future ability to inherit model descriptions ... Note that Response 2.4 is unkeen on this. 
    4854   * How would we handle ensembles? For example, one could hold the entire SRESA2 ensemble, or an ensemble member. What discovery records should exist in the first case? What should the response to a search be?  
    4955      * Imagine a three member ensemble, should there be four records? At what point does the user see four? First response should be one surely? 
    5056      * Note that as it stands we need to make clear that an ensemble record which includes multiple initial condition members does not need repeated initial condition elements for each ensemble member. (There is an impossible sentence at the bottom of the simulated description that could be improved a lot to make this clearer). 
    51  * (Discussion) Should we allow references in the initial condition like we do the boundary condition? 
     57 
    5258 * (Discussion) We could support individual members of the climate prediction ensembles by adding to the model element an optional <perturbed> element which could be a list made up of arg param pairs. These would appear in ensemble member descriptions but not in grand ensemble descriptions. The usual issue of what level in the D heirarchy should be exposed to the wider world will arise.  
    5359 * (Probable) Conform to ISO19115 extension mechanism 
    54  * (Discussion) Should we make the model resolution a properly configurable subelement. (This to support the situation where the model resolution is different from the resolution of the accompanying dataset). 
    55 This should almost certainly use Balaji's formalism. 
     60 * 
    5661 
    5762==== V008 ==== 
    5863 
    5964 * (Probable) [http://www.cgam.nerc.ac.uk/pmwiki/NMM/index.php/ Earley Suite Convergence]. What we want to be able to do is generate NumSim entries from Earley Suite descriptions. This may involve some interesting ontological jumps :-) 
    60  * (Discuss) Following response 2.3. Given that model has another understanding, in for example, geology, should we use a different word for model, e.g.: simulator? 
     65 * (Discuss)