Changes between Version 6 and Version 7 of NumSim


Ignore:
Timestamp:
09/03/06 13:25:31 (14 years ago)
Author:
lawrence
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • NumSim

    v6 v7  
    3737[[TicketQuery(Keywords~=NumSim&Milestone=NumSimV007)]]  
    3838 
     39==== [milestone:NumSimV008] ==== 
     40 
     41[[TicketQuery(Keywords~=NumSim&Milestone=NumSimV008)]]  
     42 
    3943==== NumSim related tasks against other NDG major milestones ==== 
    4044 
     
    4549Generally these are things that might be issues, that are not raised as tickets against any milestone (yet). 
    4650 
     51Significant 
     52 
     53 1. 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.  
     54 1. 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. ''Seems unlikely at the moment'' 
     55 
     56Trivial 
     57 
    4758 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? 
    4859 1. Should we suck any pages we link to down into the archive as copies? (This is a curation issue). 
    4960 
    5061 
    51  * (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. 
    5262 
    53  * (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. 
    54    * 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?  
    55       * Imagine a three member ensemble, should there be four records? At what point does the user see four? First response should be one surely? 
    56       * 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). 
    5763 
    58  * (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.  
    59  * (Probable) Conform to ISO19115 extension mechanism 
    60  * 
    6164 
    62 ==== V008 ==== 
    6365 
    64  * (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 :-) 
    65  * (Discuss)