wiki.openmod-initiative.org - User contributions [en]

Talk:Events

2021-03-05T07:02:59Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Suprem Ultra - Meningkatkan ukuran penis, ereksi==
[[:File:https://www.healthnutra.org/id/suprem-ultra/|Suprem Ultra]] - Biasanya, mereka dapat dirumuskan dengan campuran bumbu dan bahan alami. Masalah yang baik tentang hal ini dapat bahwa Anda mendapatkan jenis murni zat bukan bahan sintetis yang dibuat untuk mengelola efek yang sama seperti yang alami. Selain itu, ada tidak ada efek segi dalam peningkatan ini penis alami barang terpisah dari hal seperti ereksi meningkat, kinerja seksual yang lebih tinggi, dan meningkatkan kesehatan penis. [[:File:https://www.healthnutra.org/id/suprem-ultra/|https://www.healthnutra.org/id/suprem-ultra/]] [[:File:https://www.healthnutra.org/id/inno-gialuron/|https://www.healthnutra.org/id/inno-gialuron/]] [[:File:http://suprem-ultra-id.over-blog.com/suprem-ultra|http://suprem-ultra-id.over-blog.com/suprem-ultra]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 23 October 2019, 13:13 (CEST)
==Salesforce Study Materials==
A Tab is utilized to uncover an item and its information to the end client through the web interface. A Tab isn't really connected with Object all the occasions (there are various kinds of tabs). Page format controls how the fields are masterminded in the page. Each Profile has its own Page Layout. Each App has its own tabs (changing App has no effect on Security).2016-08-29_1124 What is metadata? How can it contrast with Data? [[:File:https://dumpsarena.com/vendor/salesforce/|Salesforce Study Materials]] Arrangement inside Salesforce, including, for instance, article and field definitions is put away inside something many refer to as metadata. This is generally entered and designed by the Admin or Consultant. For instance, in the above screen capture, "Site " is a field with field type = URL and name "Site". These characterize the field, and consequently they are metadata. You can consider the source code for the application itself as information that gives the data on how your application looks, feels, and capacities: this is metadata. Another model:, the custom field "Reason Lost" on the open door object is characterized with metadata, while the open door records are information. Metadata is the data about the design: we characterize a field utilizing. Click Here More Info >>>>> [[:File:https://dumpsarena.com/vendor/salesforce/|https://dumpsarena.com/vendor/salesforce/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 2 January 2021, 07:41 (CET)
==Cisco Study Materials==
Cisco CCNA Routing and Switching 200-301 accreditation preparing units for the limited financial plans as far as possible up to our Platinum CCIE confirmation preparing pack. We can likewise alter our Cisco affirmation preparing units to address your issues, regardless of whether it is for your CCNA Routing and Switching, CCNA Security, CCNA Voice, CCNP or CCIE home lab. Simply email us, consider us or utilize our live talk and [[:File:https://dumpsarena.com/vendor/cisco/|Cisco Study Materials]] we will tailor an answer for address your issues and spending plan. CertificationKits Has the Lab Kits and Hands-On Training Materials You Need to Pass Your Exam! The way to breezing through your Cisco Certification test is having the correct mix of hardware and the legitimate examination materials to commend your lab. CertificationKits sets aside the effort to not just set up for you the correct mix of gear, yet our CCNP and CCIE confirmed staff has made our in-your-face Cisco Certification study materials that are written in a straightforward way so you can handle the extreme test ideas easily! Our Refurbished . Click Here More Info >>>>> [[:File:https://dumpsarena.com/vendor/cisco/|https://dumpsarena.com/vendor/cisco/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 2 January 2021, 10:28 (CET)
==Microsoft Study Materials==
Learning materials for Microsoft Office Specialist confirmations Pathway to affirmation Preparing your understudies for accreditation is a major duty, so let Certiport make your employment simpler and more compelling with ACCLAIMED course materials and practice tests. Watch this concise video to perceive how Learning Products can function for you. [[:File:https://dumpsarena.com/vendor/microsoft/|Microsoft Study Materials]] LearnKey video courseware improves the learning experience and builds affirmation test achievement. It gives self-guided on-request video learning material for Certiport's Microsoft Office Specialist Program. These master learning arrangements are anything but difficult to utilize and intelligent, and help plan understudies for accreditation achievement. Video-based e-learning courseware Interactive labs Prescriptive investigation guides Available for: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and Access Jasperactive for Microsoft Office Jasperactive Logo Founded on CCI Learning's reality driving substance, Jasperactive for Microsoft Office is the world's first sensation Microsoft Office learning . Click Here More Info >>>>> [[:File:https://dumpsarena.com/vendor/microsoft/|https://dumpsarena.com/vendor/microsoft/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 2 January 2021, 12:05 (CET)
==ABA Exams Dumps==
You could be capable of evaluation your percent rating according to content material vicinity. ABA Exams Dumps Each mock examination may be taken simplest as soon as. Feedback is given with the aid of using content material vicinity, now no longer with ABA Exams Dumps the aid of using an man or woman query.  https://dumpsboss.com/certification-provider/aba/ [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 January 2021, 07:47 (CET)
==Should Fixing Amazon Exams Dumps Take 80 Steps?==
Even as firms undertake multi-cloud techniques, [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/certification-provider/amazon/|Amazon Exams Dumps]] this doesn’t decrease the significance of an AWS certification – pretty the opposite. Candidate certifications AWS certifications themselves stand out for his or her rigor and thoroughness in comparing a candidate’s competencies, with an emphasis on hands-on enjoy and high-satisfactory practices. If you’re already operating with AWS, [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/certification-provider/amazon/|Amazon Exams Dumps]] making ready for a certification can assist enhance your understanding via way of means of clarifying key principles.  [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/certification-provider/amazon/|https://dumpsboss.com/certification-provider/amazon/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 14 January 2021, 08:34 (CET)
==Cracking The Exam Dumps Websites Secret==
The course stresses the crucial thoughts and tool that electronics engineers can rent to avoid electromagnetic compatibility and signal integrity issues. Students completing the course can be able to make proper selections regarding board layout and tool format for EMC. [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Best Exams Dumps]] They moreover can be well prepared for advanced publications in electromagnetic compatibility that require university college university college students to have a number one maintain near of crucial crucial thoughts.Course Outline Advanced Design for EMC Compliance Electronic products [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Top Exam Dumps Site]] want to be designed to fulfill all electromagnetic compatibility requirements, then tested as rapid as to validate the format.  [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|https://dumpsboss.com/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 February 2021, 07:11 (CET)
==Top Exam Dumps On A Budget: 8 Tips From The Great Depression==
The internet internet [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Top 10 Exam Dumps Website]] internet internet net internet site on-line on-line on-line moreover has a numerous content material fabric material fabric material fabric library, more than one have a take a look at modes, splendor-based completely simply in truth have a take a look at courses, [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Best Exam Dumps]] storage for all your notes, and a real-time self-assessing score that tracks your improvement on a assignment.  [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|https://dumpsboss.com/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 19 February 2021, 08:24 (CET)
==Determine whether or not or now no longer==
Look at your calendar and [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Top 10 Exam Dumps Website]] determine how many hours you have got were given have been given were given were given to complete your artwork. Determine whether or not or now no longer or now not or now now not or now now now not or now now now now not your list can be completed in the amount of time that you have available.  [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|https://dumpsboss.com/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 22 February 2021, 07:30 (CET)
==Collaboration is the choice of the sport for this internet==
An valuable organizational [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Top 10 Exam Dumps Website]] device, this net net net net internet net web website online online online online can sync your records during pc systems and telephones, percent with unique customers, gather net-clips, and create all from one essential platform. Evernote may be carried out in a large number of strategies: preserving studies paper records in order, organizing presentation notes, developing have a check publications off of in-beauty note-taking, now no longer to say regular [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Best Exam Dumps Website]] non-college associated tasks, too.Collaboration is the choice of the sport for this internet webweb net internet internet net web page.  [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|https://dumpsboss.com/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 2 March 2021, 07:54 (CET)
==Try to offer an purpose of the cloth ==
After a on the equal time as,  [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Top 10 Exam Dumps Website]] you may find out that your spot is truely too snug and now now now no longer is a amazing vicinity to have a check, so it’s time to hop to a current spot! Become a trainer Try to offer an purpose of the cloth to your very very private phrases, as in case you are the trainer. [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Exam Dumps]] You can try this in a have a check organisation, with a have a check partner, or to your very very private.  [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|https://dumpsboss.com/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 3 March 2021, 07:44 (CET)
==College students collectively along detail your direction unit==
A first rate form is crucial [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Top 10 Exam Dumps Website]] to familiarise university college university college university college university college students collectively along detail your direction unit. In this chapter, we've got were given had been given a check primarily based totally absolutely truely truely in fact introductions, properly-organised structures and the usage of text form markers. In addition, we talk the one-of-a-type varieties of university college university college university college university college students.Advice: [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Best Exam Dumps Website]] Use a readable font to your written have a check materials.  [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|https://dumpsboss.com/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2021, 08:11 (CET)
==You need to want to ensure that the seller==
We have a robust [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Certification Dumps]] purchasing for tool When it consists of seeking out some detail online (like 6002-1 take a look at substances), you need to want to ensure that the seller has supplied the proper purchasing for tool. Because if there may be no the proper purchasing for tool, the clients' [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|Exam Dumps]] private records of our 6002-1 take a look at substances can't be included.  [[:File:https://dumpsboss.com/|https://dumpsboss.com/]] [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 5 March 2021, 08:02 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Events

2021-03-04T07:11:14Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2021-03-03T06:44:20Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2021-03-02T06:54:12Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2021-02-22T06:30:44Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2021-02-19T07:24:42Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2021-02-18T06:11:19Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2021-01-14T07:34:22Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2021-01-04T06:47:20Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2021-01-02T11:05:18Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2021-01-02T09:28:46Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2021-01-02T06:41:11Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Events

2019-10-23T11:13:59Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Thermal demand

2018-05-07T08:09:52Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Demand profile NL==
For the Netherlands, natural gas demands for individual heating demand can be found here: http://www.nedu.nl/documenten/verbruiksprofielen/ Thanks for adding this info to the Wiki! [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 May 2018, 10:09 (CEST)
</div>

Talk:Database schema

2017-07-14T11:53:18Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Additional oedp schema for ==
We (ZNES Flensburg) talked today with the oedp developers about the oedp schemas. The current structure with the existing categories are valuable and cover a lot. However, in modern energy systems it is often not easy to distinguish clearly between e.g. demand and production (Power2Heat, Pro-Sumer etc.). Therefore, we would like to propose a addtional versioned schema that is suitable. Our proposal is something like "transCategory". What do you think about this? Simon H.[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 14 July 2017, 13:53 (CEST)
</div>

Talk:Database schema

2017-07-14T11:53:00Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Additional oedp schema for ==
We (ZNES Flensburg) talked today with the oedp developers about the oedp schemas. The current structure with the existing categories are valuable and cover a lot. However, in modern energy systems it is often not easy to distinguish clearly between e.g. demand and production (Power2Heat, Pro-Sumer etc.). Therefore, we would like to propose a addtional versioned schema that is suitable. Our proposal is something like "transCategory". What do you think about this? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 14 July 2017, 13:53 (CEST)
</div>

Talk:Logo development 2016

2016-11-15T09:16:25Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==C1 and C2==
Hi, thanks for taking the initiative, Robbie. Personally I prefer C1 and C2 over all others. The reason is that they appear much more compact and readible than all the others. I would suggest to mix colors though. Black writing and colorful box, maybe stick to the red. I think I would need to see some combination experiments here. A-logos: I find they look like a cloud picture of text (I forget how they are called, you know, when you count words and size the font according to their frequency) B-logos: My eye does not know where to focus as the left bound is hopping from o to i to o D: Too fat, too much color, it is jumping at me E: I could go for that as an alternative, however, I still prefer C as C is more "airy", E is square and full, C is open and leaves room for the eye F: My eye does not know where to focus G: My eye does not know where to focus and I feel like spinning sideways :) too much playing around for me H1-4: Again too complex for a logo for my liking, too many elements H5-6: Could potentially do with that however I find the logo not compact enough. It looks as it is falling apart due to gravity. Kind of words drooling. Hope that helps. My personal views. Looking forward to discussion. Best Eva[[User:Eva Schmid|Eva Schmid]] 19 October 2016, 08:08 (CEST)
==Style Guide==
Thank you Robbie. I can see and appreciate the effort you put in this! Before going into a feedback loop I would suggest to discuss and clarify the objective and purpose and questions like: 1. Do we want/need just an icon or a logo (with icon and text)? 2. Where do we want to use it? 3. Do we want to use picture language from the open source community? [http://fabfarm.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/open-source-concept_root.png http://fabfarm.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/open-source-concept_root.png] [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 October 2016, 10:57 (CEST)
:I would second Ludwigs comment/suggestion to possibly use the open source community picture language. I based the logo for Open Power System Data Project as well on the open circle (even though quite abstracted: http://www.open-power-system-data.org/Logo_OPSD_bw_80.png). As does open_eGo: https://www.next-energy.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/open_ego_logo.png. But I don't think it's a must, just see it as a suggestion to spark your creativity ;) Completely changing a "brand's" visual appearance is always tricky, better to make incremental improvements. Aalthough I would argue that our brand's prominence isn't very high yet to take this argument very serious. Nevertheless I prefer C and would suggest to use a colourful default version wherever possible (for better visibility) that also works when printed as a greyscale version if necessary. I would also prefer a bold font that is not noo round (as in B). Thanks for your work! [[User:Martin Jahn|Martin Jahn]] 20 October 2016, 10:42 (CEST)
==Response (loop one)==
Thank you all for commenting. Regarding purpose, always a good question to ask: * uses (as I see it) are on websites (including Wikipedia) and possibly powerpoint presentations * I didn't work up logos with icons because the original was simple text, but will do so using open source imagery as a basis Must say I like the open_eGo logo.  Will do some more work over the next two weeks and we can continue the discussion. [[User:Robbie Morrison|Robbie Morrison]] 24 October 2016, 15:24 (CEST)
==Loop two==
I really like the design of the second loop! Again big Thank You Robbie. Perhalps it could be easier to discuss and agree on basic components of the logo: existing / '''new''' - Starting with the writings I would follow your opinion to use '''OpEnMod '''with capitals insted of openmod as the abbreviation - Change the name from open energy modelling initiative to '''Open Energy Modelling Initiative''' - In the existing logo, the Initiative is also highlighted red. I can see the intention behind it but prefer the '''same style''' (K1) - What fonts (and sizes) are you using? Should be '''the same font''' (K1, compare to K2 and N2) - The size of the name should be big and thus does not fit in one line (K1). The layout in M1 fits good and allows easy reading - The symbol (flash) in M1 is nice and can be placed in front. Perhaps combined with the O I tried to combine my suggestions and it looks like this [[File:[[File:OpEnMod logo U3.png|thumb|180px|Add caption here]]]][[File:OpEnMod logo U3.png|thumb|openmod logo U3]][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 11 November 2016, 21:12 (CET)
:Thanks for the effort. I prefer using small letters way more. I like the easy way of having all words starting small.. Aren't capital letters very german (what you say Robbie)?. I like the idea of including the open source symbol. Though I like the way J1 is done (apart from the colour) I would prefer to have the chance to also use the logo without the text. Is there an interpretation for the flash?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 11 November 2016, 21:51 (CET)
::I prefer J1 as well. All other logos I find a bit hectic (the arrows and so forth). I like the idea of the keyhole to "open the black box of modelling". I agree with small letters. [[User:Eva Schmid|Eva Schmid]] 14 November 2016, 08:50 (CET)
::Some fun ideas coming from this - nice work! Agreed with Berit on the case, all lower case does seem a lot smoother. The arrows would lead to a simple stand-alone logo, but I'm not sure they really communicate openmod (or OpEnMod ;) ) properly. For J1: "Opening the black box of modelling", as Eva puts it, is a nice touch, although it wasn't instantly obvious to me that it was a keyhole. Could try something with the first O of openmod being an incomplete circle/part of a keyhole? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 14 November 2016, 12:37 (CET)
:::Thanks Robbie for the new designs! I also like the idea of re-using or "citing" other open source logos. I personally like the last best, where the O or keyhole is used with the flashs. I also like the idea of O1-O3, where the "O" in Openmod is used as part of the logo. What if we used the keyhole-O within the writing? I tried a rough sketch, but how can I upload it? Cheers, Katrin [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 15 November 2016, 10:10 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Logo development 2016

2016-11-15T09:15:46Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==C1 and C2==
Hi, thanks for taking the initiative, Robbie. Personally I prefer C1 and C2 over all others. The reason is that they appear much more compact and readible than all the others. I would suggest to mix colors though. Black writing and colorful box, maybe stick to the red. I think I would need to see some combination experiments here. A-logos: I find they look like a cloud picture of text (I forget how they are called, you know, when you count words and size the font according to their frequency) B-logos: My eye does not know where to focus as the left bound is hopping from o to i to o D: Too fat, too much color, it is jumping at me E: I could go for that as an alternative, however, I still prefer C as C is more "airy", E is square and full, C is open and leaves room for the eye F: My eye does not know where to focus G: My eye does not know where to focus and I feel like spinning sideways :) too much playing around for me H1-4: Again too complex for a logo for my liking, too many elements H5-6: Could potentially do with that however I find the logo not compact enough. It looks as it is falling apart due to gravity. Kind of words drooling. Hope that helps. My personal views. Looking forward to discussion. Best Eva[[User:Eva Schmid|Eva Schmid]] 19 October 2016, 08:08 (CEST)
==Style Guide==
Thank you Robbie. I can see and appreciate the effort you put in this! Before going into a feedback loop I would suggest to discuss and clarify the objective and purpose and questions like: 1. Do we want/need just an icon or a logo (with icon and text)? 2. Where do we want to use it? 3. Do we want to use picture language from the open source community? [http://fabfarm.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/open-source-concept_root.png http://fabfarm.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/open-source-concept_root.png] [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 October 2016, 10:57 (CEST)
:I would second Ludwigs comment/suggestion to possibly use the open source community picture language. I based the logo for Open Power System Data Project as well on the open circle (even though quite abstracted: http://www.open-power-system-data.org/Logo_OPSD_bw_80.png). As does open_eGo: https://www.next-energy.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/open_ego_logo.png. But I don't think it's a must, just see it as a suggestion to spark your creativity ;) Completely changing a "brand's" visual appearance is always tricky, better to make incremental improvements. Aalthough I would argue that our brand's prominence isn't very high yet to take this argument very serious. Nevertheless I prefer C and would suggest to use a colourful default version wherever possible (for better visibility) that also works when printed as a greyscale version if necessary. I would also prefer a bold font that is not noo round (as in B). Thanks for your work! [[User:Martin Jahn|Martin Jahn]] 20 October 2016, 10:42 (CEST)
==Response (loop one)==
Thank you all for commenting. Regarding purpose, always a good question to ask: * uses (as I see it) are on websites (including Wikipedia) and possibly powerpoint presentations * I didn't work up logos with icons because the original was simple text, but will do so using open source imagery as a basis Must say I like the open_eGo logo.  Will do some more work over the next two weeks and we can continue the discussion. [[User:Robbie Morrison|Robbie Morrison]] 24 October 2016, 15:24 (CEST)
==Loop two==
I really like the design of the second loop! Again big Thank You Robbie. Perhalps it could be easier to discuss and agree on basic components of the logo: existing / '''new''' - Starting with the writings I would follow your opinion to use '''OpEnMod '''with capitals insted of openmod as the abbreviation - Change the name from open energy modelling initiative to '''Open Energy Modelling Initiative''' - In the existing logo, the Initiative is also highlighted red. I can see the intention behind it but prefer the '''same style''' (K1) - What fonts (and sizes) are you using? Should be '''the same font''' (K1, compare to K2 and N2) - The size of the name should be big and thus does not fit in one line (K1). The layout in M1 fits good and allows easy reading - The symbol (flash) in M1 is nice and can be placed in front. Perhaps combined with the O I tried to combine my suggestions and it looks like this [[File:[[File:OpEnMod logo U3.png|thumb|180px|Add caption here]]]][[File:OpEnMod logo U3.png|thumb|openmod logo U3]][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 11 November 2016, 21:12 (CET)
:Thanks for the effort. I prefer using small letters way more. I like the easy way of having all words starting small.. Aren't capital letters very german (what you say Robbie)?. I like the idea of including the open source symbol. Though I like the way J1 is done (apart from the colour) I would prefer to have the chance to also use the logo without the text. Is there an interpretation for the flash?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 11 November 2016, 21:51 (CET)
::I prefer J1 as well. All other logos I find a bit hectic (the arrows and so forth). I like the idea of the keyhole to "open the black box of modelling". I agree with small letters. [[User:Eva Schmid|Eva Schmid]] 14 November 2016, 08:50 (CET)
::Some fun ideas coming from this - nice work! Agreed with Berit on the case, all lower case does seem a lot smoother. The arrows would lead to a simple stand-alone logo, but I'm not sure they really communicate openmod (or OpEnMod ;) ) properly. For J1: "Opening the black box of modelling", as Eva puts it, is a nice touch, although it wasn't instantly obvious to me that it was a keyhole. Could try something with the first O of openmod being an incomplete circle/part of a keyhole? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 14 November 2016, 12:37 (CET)
:::Thanks Robbie for the new designs! I also like the idea of re-using or "citing" other open source logos. I personally like the last best, where the O or keyhole is used with the flashs. I also like the idea of O1-O3, where the "O" in Openmod is used as part of the logo. What if we used the keyhole-O within the writing? I tried a rough sketch, but how can I upload it?[[File:C:\Users\Schaber.Katrin\Desktop\sketch T1 modified.PNG]] Cheers, Katrin [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 15 November 2016, 10:10 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Logo development 2016

2016-11-15T09:10:43Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==C1 and C2==
Hi, thanks for taking the initiative, Robbie. Personally I prefer C1 and C2 over all others. The reason is that they appear much more compact and readible than all the others. I would suggest to mix colors though. Black writing and colorful box, maybe stick to the red. I think I would need to see some combination experiments here. A-logos: I find they look like a cloud picture of text (I forget how they are called, you know, when you count words and size the font according to their frequency) B-logos: My eye does not know where to focus as the left bound is hopping from o to i to o D: Too fat, too much color, it is jumping at me E: I could go for that as an alternative, however, I still prefer C as C is more "airy", E is square and full, C is open and leaves room for the eye F: My eye does not know where to focus G: My eye does not know where to focus and I feel like spinning sideways :) too much playing around for me H1-4: Again too complex for a logo for my liking, too many elements H5-6: Could potentially do with that however I find the logo not compact enough. It looks as it is falling apart due to gravity. Kind of words drooling. Hope that helps. My personal views. Looking forward to discussion. Best Eva[[User:Eva Schmid|Eva Schmid]] 19 October 2016, 08:08 (CEST)
==Style Guide==
Thank you Robbie. I can see and appreciate the effort you put in this! Before going into a feedback loop I would suggest to discuss and clarify the objective and purpose and questions like: 1. Do we want/need just an icon or a logo (with icon and text)? 2. Where do we want to use it? 3. Do we want to use picture language from the open source community? [http://fabfarm.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/open-source-concept_root.png http://fabfarm.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/open-source-concept_root.png] [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 October 2016, 10:57 (CEST)
:I would second Ludwigs comment/suggestion to possibly use the open source community picture language. I based the logo for Open Power System Data Project as well on the open circle (even though quite abstracted: http://www.open-power-system-data.org/Logo_OPSD_bw_80.png). As does open_eGo: https://www.next-energy.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/open_ego_logo.png. But I don't think it's a must, just see it as a suggestion to spark your creativity ;) Completely changing a "brand's" visual appearance is always tricky, better to make incremental improvements. Aalthough I would argue that our brand's prominence isn't very high yet to take this argument very serious. Nevertheless I prefer C and would suggest to use a colourful default version wherever possible (for better visibility) that also works when printed as a greyscale version if necessary. I would also prefer a bold font that is not noo round (as in B). Thanks for your work! [[User:Martin Jahn|Martin Jahn]] 20 October 2016, 10:42 (CEST)
==Response (loop one)==
Thank you all for commenting. Regarding purpose, always a good question to ask: * uses (as I see it) are on websites (including Wikipedia) and possibly powerpoint presentations * I didn't work up logos with icons because the original was simple text, but will do so using open source imagery as a basis Must say I like the open_eGo logo.  Will do some more work over the next two weeks and we can continue the discussion. [[User:Robbie Morrison|Robbie Morrison]] 24 October 2016, 15:24 (CEST)
==Loop two==
I really like the design of the second loop! Again big Thank You Robbie. Perhalps it could be easier to discuss and agree on basic components of the logo: existing / '''new''' - Starting with the writings I would follow your opinion to use '''OpEnMod '''with capitals insted of openmod as the abbreviation - Change the name from open energy modelling initiative to '''Open Energy Modelling Initiative''' - In the existing logo, the Initiative is also highlighted red. I can see the intention behind it but prefer the '''same style''' (K1) - What fonts (and sizes) are you using? Should be '''the same font''' (K1, compare to K2 and N2) - The size of the name should be big and thus does not fit in one line (K1). The layout in M1 fits good and allows easy reading - The symbol (flash) in M1 is nice and can be placed in front. Perhaps combined with the O I tried to combine my suggestions and it looks like this [[File:[[File:OpEnMod logo U3.png|thumb|180px|Add caption here]]]][[File:OpEnMod logo U3.png|thumb|openmod logo U3]][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 11 November 2016, 21:12 (CET)
:Thanks for the effort. I prefer using small letters way more. I like the easy way of having all words starting small.. Aren't capital letters very german (what you say Robbie)?. I like the idea of including the open source symbol. Though I like the way J1 is done (apart from the colour) I would prefer to have the chance to also use the logo without the text. Is there an interpretation for the flash?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 11 November 2016, 21:51 (CET)
::I prefer J1 as well. All other logos I find a bit hectic (the arrows and so forth). I like the idea of the keyhole to "open the black box of modelling". I agree with small letters. [[User:Eva Schmid|Eva Schmid]] 14 November 2016, 08:50 (CET)
::Some fun ideas coming from this - nice work! Agreed with Berit on the case, all lower case does seem a lot smoother. The arrows would lead to a simple stand-alone logo, but I'm not sure they really communicate openmod (or OpEnMod ;) ) properly. For J1: "Opening the black box of modelling", as Eva puts it, is a nice touch, although it wasn't instantly obvious to me that it was a keyhole. Could try something with the first O of openmod being an incomplete circle/part of a keyhole? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 14 November 2016, 12:37 (CET)
:::Thanks Robbie for the new designs! I also like the idea of re-using or "citing" other open source logos. I personally like the last best, where the O or keyhole is used with the flashs. I also like the idea of O1-O3, where the "O" in Openmod is used as part of the logo. What if we used the keyhole-O within the writing? I tried a rough sketch. Cheers, Katrin [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 15 November 2016, 10:10 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Logo development 2016

2016-11-14T11:37:34Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-22T11:21:01Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?] '''ToDo:''' Change "Institutions" to "Partners" in MF, FF and SF[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose of the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:::::framework: delete primary output model: leave both in general information [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:28 (CEST)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
::::I'm not sure if we already discussed it but we didn't note it here anyway: why do you think model file format is mandatory and model software shouldn't be? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 14:44 (CEST)
:::::Decision: model file format: not mandatory modelling software: mandatory [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:58 (CEST)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)
::::I would prefer in the mathematical properties section.[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:32 (CEST)
:::::Ok, will be be moved. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:59 (CEST)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)
:::We will have to open up to different kinds of models. Mobility is part of the energy system. How can we find out the requirements of these models? [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:36 (CEST)
::::Fact sheets passen so nicht ganz; vielleicht mit einigen Feldern die "other" benennen und dann Platz für weitere Einträge lassen kann das ermöglicht werden [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:43 (CEST)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:::still missing? Planned to implement? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:47 (CEST)
::::Gibt es issue?? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:45 (CEST)
:::::GitHub Issue #49 [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 23:02 (CEST)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code CLOSED - that's implemented as Eva described it[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:::This is still missing - right? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:46 (CEST)
::::Is the separation between "Modeled energy sectors" and "Modeled demand sectors" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ] [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:25 (CEST)
:::::CLOSED [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:47 (CEST)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
::output data is not yet mentioned in the fact sheets? we should put that somewhere [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:07 (CEST)
:::Access to output data doesn't make sense for Models - only for scenarios [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:50 (CEST)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?] closed[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?] -> additional software[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
::CLOSED - additional software includes all; you can add as many lines as necessary [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:01 (CEST)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
:::I understand that APIs are to connect with other models abd a GUI is to facilitate working for the user. suggestion: leave it as it is? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:57 (CEST)
::::Erklärungen ergänzen (ausschreiben) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:07 (CEST)
:::::We are working on the implementation. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 22 April 2016, 12:40 (CEST)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:closed[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?] CLOSED[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:::math properties. because it doesn't depend on the region. [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:13 (CEST)
:::CLOSE - see above (suggestion: methematical properties) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:17 (CEST)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
::suggestion: properties electrical grid [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:19 (CEST)
:::Will be implemented. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 22 April 2016, 12:42 (CEST)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:::CLOSED - Agreed with Francesco [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:20 (CEST)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
::could we put that in the info text of the mathematical model class? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:26 (CEST)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:::Yes  - Evas suggestion! [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
:::1. is the reference peer-revied? 2. is the model validated? * cross-checked with other models * checked with measurements (measured data) 3 other[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:32 (CEST)
::::does the validation refer to the model or the reference?[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)
:::::To model validation. The suggested options will be implemented. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 22 April 2016, 13:21 (CEST)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
::We will rearrange the set-up. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach. We are also trying to avoid all these line breaks. The texts are still long. Please, feel free to make suggestions for shorter texts! The text standing in parenthesis could for instance become information text (accessible via the question marks).[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported. The list was meant to look like this: renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; networks (electricity, gas, heat); storages (battery, kinetic, CAES, PHS, chemical) [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
::That bug will be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
::ad 1. Please, help us to define and differentiate between the terms "data" and "assumptions". So far we understood data as empirical data, taken from statistics or other sources. Assumptions are estimations (own estimations or values taken from other studies). ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
::frameworks don't have outputs [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:45 (CEST)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
::This meta ;) Assumption: If a Framework is based on another Framework it is either: 1. Part of the Framework 2. An independent Framework [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:59 (CEST)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::in my eyes: yes [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:16 (CEST)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
::What's about links to the Glossary?[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 13:16 (CEST)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: 1) I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info 2) I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) => CLOSED: Summary: we were dicussing to leave out the points which are not answered in displaying the modelfactsheet. Agains it was the wish to display also what could have been answered. We agreed to display all points. 3) what is the point if the categories are visible or not? I suggest that general informations, Software as well as openness are open while the others are closed (as presetting). 4) It would be nice to have the "primary purpose" (and also the primary outcome) as description under the header; and I think "name" and "acronym" are not necessary to display a second time (already in the header) 5) I would like some colours! green check-mark; red cross[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
:::After additional points it became the second: I closed it due to our discussion additional idea: the not used points could become grey[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 11:04 (CEST)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-22T10:42:28Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?] '''ToDo:''' Change "Institutions" to "Partners" in MF, FF and SF[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose of the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:::::framework: delete primary output model: leave both in general information [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:28 (CEST)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
::::I'm not sure if we already discussed it but we didn't note it here anyway: why do you think model file format is mandatory and model software shouldn't be? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 14:44 (CEST)
:::::Decision: model file format: not mandatory modelling software: mandatory [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:58 (CEST)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)
::::I would prefer in the mathematical properties section.[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:32 (CEST)
:::::Ok, will be be moved. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:59 (CEST)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)
:::We will have to open up to different kinds of models. Mobility is part of the energy system. How can we find out the requirements of these models? [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:36 (CEST)
::::Fact sheets passen so nicht ganz; vielleicht mit einigen Feldern die "other" benennen und dann Platz für weitere Einträge lassen kann das ermöglicht werden [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:43 (CEST)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:::still missing? Planned to implement? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:47 (CEST)
::::Gibt es issue?? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:45 (CEST)
:::::GitHub Issue #49 [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 23:02 (CEST)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code CLOSED - that's implemented as Eva described it[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:::This is still missing - right? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:46 (CEST)
::::Is the separation between "Modeled energy sectors" and "Modeled demand sectors" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ] [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:25 (CEST)
:::::CLOSED [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:47 (CEST)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
::output data is not yet mentioned in the fact sheets? we should put that somewhere [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:07 (CEST)
:::Access to output data doesn't make sense for Models - only for scenarios [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:50 (CEST)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?] closed[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?] -> additional software[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
::CLOSED - additional software includes all; you can add as many lines as necessary [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:01 (CEST)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
:::I understand that APIs are to connect with other models abd a GUI is to facilitate working for the user. suggestion: leave it as it is? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:57 (CEST)
::::Erklärungen ergänzen (ausschreiben) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:07 (CEST)
:::::We are working on the implementation. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 22 April 2016, 12:40 (CEST)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:closed[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?] CLOSED[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:::math properties. because it doesn't depend on the region. [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:13 (CEST)
:::CLOSE - see above (suggestion: methematical properties) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:17 (CEST)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
::suggestion: properties electrical grid [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:19 (CEST)
:::Will be implemented. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 22 April 2016, 12:42 (CEST)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:::CLOSED - Agreed with Francesco [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:20 (CEST)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
::could we put that in the info text of the mathematical model class? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:26 (CEST)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:::Yes  - Evas suggestion! [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
:::1. is the reference peer-revied? 2. is the model validated? * cross-checked with other models * checked with measurements (measured data) 3 other[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:32 (CEST)
::::does the validation refer to the model or the reference?[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
::We will rearrange the set-up. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach. We are also trying to avoid all these line breaks. The texts are still long. Please, feel free to make suggestions for shorter texts! The text standing in parenthesis could for instance become information text (accessible via the question marks).[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported. The list was meant to look like this: renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; networks (electricity, gas, heat); storages (battery, kinetic, CAES, PHS, chemical) [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
::That bug will be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
::ad 1. Please, help us to define and differentiate between the terms "data" and "assumptions". So far we understood data as empirical data, taken from statistics or other sources. Assumptions are estimations (own estimations or values taken from other studies). ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
::frameworks don't have outputs [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:45 (CEST)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
::This meta ;) Assumption: If a Framework is based on another Framework it is either: 1. Part of the Framework 2. An independent Framework [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:59 (CEST)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::in my eyes: yes [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:16 (CEST)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
::What's about links to the Glossary?[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 13:16 (CEST)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: 1) I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info 2) I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) => CLOSED: Summary: we were dicussing to leave out the points which are not answered in displaying the modelfactsheet. Agains it was the wish to display also what could have been answered. We agreed to display all points. 3) what is the point if the categories are visible or not? I suggest that general informations, Software as well as openness are open while the others are closed (as presetting). 4) It would be nice to have the "primary purpose" (and also the primary outcome) as description under the header; and I think "name" and "acronym" are not necessary to display a second time (already in the header) 5) I would like some colours! green check-mark; red cross[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
:::After additional points it became the second: I closed it due to our discussion additional idea: the not used points could become grey[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 11:04 (CEST)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-22T10:40:26Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?] '''ToDo:''' Change "Institutions" to "Partners" in MF, FF and SF[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose of the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:::::framework: delete primary output model: leave both in general information [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:28 (CEST)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
::::I'm not sure if we already discussed it but we didn't note it here anyway: why do you think model file format is mandatory and model software shouldn't be? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 14:44 (CEST)
:::::Decision: model file format: not mandatory modelling software: mandatory [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:58 (CEST)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)
::::I would prefer in the mathematical properties section.[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:32 (CEST)
:::::Ok, will be be moved. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:59 (CEST)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)
:::We will have to open up to different kinds of models. Mobility is part of the energy system. How can we find out the requirements of these models? [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:36 (CEST)
::::Fact sheets passen so nicht ganz; vielleicht mit einigen Feldern die "other" benennen und dann Platz für weitere Einträge lassen kann das ermöglicht werden [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:43 (CEST)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:::still missing? Planned to implement? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:47 (CEST)
::::Gibt es issue?? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:45 (CEST)
:::::GitHub Issue #49 [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 23:02 (CEST)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code CLOSED - that's implemented as Eva described it[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:::This is still missing - right? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:46 (CEST)
::::Is the separation between "Modeled energy sectors" and "Modeled demand sectors" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ] [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:25 (CEST)
:::::CLOSED [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:47 (CEST)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
::output data is not yet mentioned in the fact sheets? we should put that somewhere [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:07 (CEST)
:::Access to output data doesn't make sense for Models - only for scenarios [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:50 (CEST)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?] closed[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?] -> additional software[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
::CLOSED - additional software includes all; you can add as many lines as necessary [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:01 (CEST)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
:::I understand that APIs are to connect with other models abd a GUI is to facilitate working for the user. suggestion: leave it as it is? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:57 (CEST)
::::Erklärungen ergänzen (ausschreiben) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:07 (CEST)
:::::We are working on the implementation. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 22 April 2016, 12:40 (CEST)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:closed[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?] CLOSED[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:::math properties. because it doesn't depend on the region. [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:13 (CEST)
:::CLOSE - see above (suggestion: methematical properties) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:17 (CEST)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
::suggestion: properties electrical grid [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:19 (CEST)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:::CLOSED - Agreed with Francesco [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:20 (CEST)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
::could we put that in the info text of the mathematical model class? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:26 (CEST)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:::Yes  - Evas suggestion! [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
:::1. is the reference peer-revied? 2. is the model validated? * cross-checked with other models * checked with measurements (measured data) 3 other[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:32 (CEST)
::::does the validation refer to the model or the reference?[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
::We will rearrange the set-up. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach. We are also trying to avoid all these line breaks. The texts are still long. Please, feel free to make suggestions for shorter texts! The text standing in parenthesis could for instance become information text (accessible via the question marks).[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported. The list was meant to look like this: renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; networks (electricity, gas, heat); storages (battery, kinetic, CAES, PHS, chemical) [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
::That bug will be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
::ad 1. Please, help us to define and differentiate between the terms "data" and "assumptions". So far we understood data as empirical data, taken from statistics or other sources. Assumptions are estimations (own estimations or values taken from other studies). ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
::frameworks don't have outputs [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:45 (CEST)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
::This meta ;) Assumption: If a Framework is based on another Framework it is either: 1. Part of the Framework 2. An independent Framework [[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:59 (CEST)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::in my eyes: yes [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:16 (CEST)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
::What's about links to the Glossary?[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 13:16 (CEST)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: 1) I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info 2) I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) => CLOSED: Summary: we were dicussing to leave out the points which are not answered in displaying the modelfactsheet. Agains it was the wish to display also what could have been answered. We agreed to display all points. 3) what is the point if the categories are visible or not? I suggest that general informations, Software as well as openness are open while the others are closed (as presetting). 4) It would be nice to have the "primary purpose" (and also the primary outcome) as description under the header; and I think "name" and "acronym" are not necessary to display a second time (already in the header) 5) I would like some colours! green check-mark; red cross[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
:::After additional points it became the second: I closed it due to our discussion additional idea: the not used points could become grey[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 11:04 (CEST)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-19T09:00:54Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:::still missing? Planned to implement? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:47 (CEST)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:::This is still missing - right? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:46 (CEST)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
::output data is not yet mentioned in the fact sheets? we should put that somewhere [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:07 (CEST)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
:::I understand that APIs are to connect with other models abd a GUI is to facilitate working for the user. suggestion: leave it as it is? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:57 (CEST)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
::We will rearrange the set-up. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach. We are also trying to avoid all these line breaks. The texts are still long. Please, feel free to make suggestions for shorter texts! The text standing in parenthesis could for instance become information text (accessible via the question marks).[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported. The list was meant to look like this: renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; networks (electricity, gas, heat); storages (battery, kinetic, CAES, PHS, chemical) [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
::That bug will be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
::ad 1. Please, help us to define and differentiate between the terms "data" and "assumptions". So far we understood data as empirical data, taken from statistics or other sources. Assumptions are estimations (own estimations or values taken from other studies). ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::in my eyes: yes [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:16 (CEST)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category CLOSED Summary: we were dicussing to leave out the points which are not answered in displaying the modelfactsheet. Agains it was the wish to display also what could have been answered. We agreed to display all points.[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: * I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info * I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Open Energy Modelling Workshop - Stockholm 2016

2016-04-19T08:29:04Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==outreach==
within this breakout Group we like to discuss * whom we want to reach * which objectives we have (concerning the various target groups) * the development of the openmod site (we will present and discuss the current state of the concept - proposal) (Berit Müller (RLI); evtl.Martin Glauer (Uni Magdeburg))[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 1 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
:After the online discussion about misuse and quality of open data/modelling, I suggest to add that point to our agenda for the break out group "outreach" [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 19 April 2016, 10:29 (CEST)
==open data==
We would like to discuss * how could a common data base be structured to serve best the energy system modelers? * how could quality assurance be realized (meta data and data testing), * how could it be integrated in / linked to the openmod site?we would like to present the state of development/planning that we worked out and have discussions about future developments (Martin Glauer (Uni Magdeburg); Ludwig Schneider (RLI))[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 1 March 2016, 09:25 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-18T21:57:59Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:::still missing? Planned to implement? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:47 (CEST)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:::This is still missing - right? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:46 (CEST)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
:::I understand that APIs are to connect with other models abd a GUI is to facilitate working for the user. suggestion: leave it as it is? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:57 (CEST)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
::We will rearrange the set-up. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach. We are also trying to avoid all these line breaks. The texts are still long. Please, feel free to make suggestions for shorter texts! The text standing in parenthesis could for instance become information text (accessible via the question marks).[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported. The list was meant to look like this: renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; networks (electricity, gas, heat); storages (battery, kinetic, CAES, PHS, chemical) [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
::That bug will be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
::ad 1. Please, help us to define and differentiate between the terms "data" and "assumptions". So far we understood data as empirical data, taken from statistics or other sources. Assumptions are estimations (own estimations or values taken from other studies). ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: * I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info * I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-18T21:47:51Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:::still missing? Planned to implement? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:47 (CEST)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:::This is still missing - right? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:46 (CEST)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
::We will rearrange the set-up. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach. We are also trying to avoid all these line breaks. The texts are still long. Please, feel free to make suggestions for shorter texts! The text standing in parenthesis could for instance become information text (accessible via the question marks).[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported. The list was meant to look like this: renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; networks (electricity, gas, heat); storages (battery, kinetic, CAES, PHS, chemical) [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
::That bug will be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
::ad 1. Please, help us to define and differentiate between the terms "data" and "assumptions". So far we understood data as empirical data, taken from statistics or other sources. Assumptions are estimations (own estimations or values taken from other studies). ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: * I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info * I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-18T21:46:45Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:::This is still missing - right? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:46 (CEST)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
::We will rearrange the set-up. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach. We are also trying to avoid all these line breaks. The texts are still long. Please, feel free to make suggestions for shorter texts! The text standing in parenthesis could for instance become information text (accessible via the question marks).[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported. The list was meant to look like this: renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; networks (electricity, gas, heat); storages (battery, kinetic, CAES, PHS, chemical) [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
::That bug will be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
::ad 1. Please, help us to define and differentiate between the terms "data" and "assumptions". So far we understood data as empirical data, taken from statistics or other sources. Assumptions are estimations (own estimations or values taken from other studies). ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: * I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info * I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-18T21:42:25Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
::We will rearrange the set-up. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach. We are also trying to avoid all these line breaks. The texts are still long. Please, feel free to make suggestions for shorter texts! The text standing in parenthesis could for instance become information text (accessible via the question marks).[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported. The list was meant to look like this: renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; networks (electricity, gas, heat); storages (battery, kinetic, CAES, PHS, chemical) [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
::That bug will be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
::ad 1. Please, help us to define and differentiate between the terms "data" and "assumptions". So far we understood data as empirical data, taken from statistics or other sources. Assumptions are estimations (own estimations or values taken from other studies). ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: * I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info * I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-18T21:38:03Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
::We will rearrange the set-up. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach. We are also trying to avoid all these line breaks. The texts are still long. Please, feel free to make suggestions for shorter texts! The text standing in parenthesis could for instance become information text (accessible via the question marks).[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported. The list was meant to look like this: renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; networks (electricity, gas, heat); storages (battery, kinetic, CAES, PHS, chemical) [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
::That bug will be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
::ad 1. Please, help us to define and differentiate between the terms "data" and "assumptions". So far we understood data as empirical data, taken from statistics or other sources. Assumptions are estimations (own estimations or values taken from other studies). ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: * I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info * I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-07T12:13:27Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
::That bug will be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: * I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info * I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-07T07:22:09Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==MF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations Alternative suggestion: "Partners" [General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; @Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)". Yes, in this case we are asking for the organisations developing the model. Studies, projects and organisations, that use / employ the model can be named in the section "references".[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"? [General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear? I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the primary purpose of the model.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)
::::The text field "primary purpose" was added after the first testers filled out the form. Therefore, it was empty. This text field will stay in the general information section.  "primary outputs" will stay in the general information section, until we decided, whether frameworks have outputs or not. If the answer is yes, the text field should stay in the general information section of the model- and framework fact sheets, because the framework fact sheet does not have an integration section. There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose". Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)
:General Question: Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added. '''required fields that I would change to "not required"''': acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software '''not required fields that I would change to "required"''': Open Source, Modelling software[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)
:::*"Acronym" will stay a mandatory field, because it is assumed that all models have it and it will be part of the list of all model fact sheets *documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added. *"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option. *"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format. *"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future. *"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. *"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*". *"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)
:I think the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model is very essential and I would put it in the general informations [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence? Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)
::We are working on the implementation. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:the two items "open source" and "source code available" should be put together in the form that, if  open source is checked with yes you have a text field to add the link or comment where to get the code [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)
::We will keep the checkbox "source code available", because the souce code of a model might not be available yet. When the check box is ticked, you can tick the "GitHub checkbox" and fill out the text field "Access to source code" with for instance a link. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point. I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet. Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)
:What is the correct name? Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4)) "Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model (Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...) [Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN). Major versions (e.g the first digit) should be included, as a change of this number implies changes that are not upward compatible. But this should be up to the modellers, because it might be missleading. Imagine you wrote a model in C++ that is compatible to C++98 just because you did not use certain newer features for some reason. If you specify your modelling language as C++98 your model might look old and out-of-date. Whilst specifying it as C++14 seems like one is forced to use a C++14 Compiler, which is actually not true. [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'? [software;  ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)
::I think add-ins should be included. There are explanatiory questions still missing which I think is important to differenciate between "additional software" and "add-ins"[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)" [software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right? Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options? [Coverage; ; options; ][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"? Is it essential to list all options on the second level? [coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?][[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug. How was it meant to look like? Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier) gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat) Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; What is the problem? How do we avoid doublings, but make it correct and informative at the same time? For instance petrol, diesel, ethanol are not primary energy carriers, but oil is.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)
:Where do we put the question if it is a multi regional model or a mono regional model? I think it is very essential and would put it in the '''general informations''' [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)
::There will be added the check box "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section. Please, make alternative suggestions, if you do not like that solution. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)
:The point "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)" with the options AC load flow, DC load flow, Net transfer capacities should stay limited to the electrical grid, but what is the right term to describe the three options? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:At the workshop in Berlin we discussed, whether the model fact sheet should include the main equations of the model. We came to no final conclusion. What is your opinion? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)
::Hello, in my opinion it should not. If the source of the code is clearly referenced, it is straightforward to go and check. Moreover, in some cases it may be difficult to decide what the main equations are. Don't you think so?  Francesco [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)
:in the google sheet the item "model class" were with options. Now it became text - why? if we leave it like that the dicussed options should be in the description to clarify the item. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding - solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), - problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), - objectives (single, multi) ... Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: - complexity (O(x), ...), - approximation quality An enumeration of all optimisation problems might be too complex. Sadly, I do not know which of these are common approaches in energy systems but it might be helpfull, if we state the most important for energy modelling. Any experts here? [[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what? We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. ) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? Do you agree? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)  I suggest: e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options: * peer-reviewed, * outcomes cross checked with other models or data * other + text field [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale if more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one have the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)
:item: technologies included: others should be at the end three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear 2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
==FF - design and interfaces==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "design and interfaces" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)
:Should the question "supported model types" (with the options: Grid optimisation, demand simulation, feed-in simulation, other + text field) be moved from "Design and Interfaces" to "Basic information"? [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)
:APPEARANCE the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design. To start: * I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info * I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) [[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. [[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)
</div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-07T07:15:14Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-03-21T13:56:39Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-03-21T13:51:23Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-03-21T13:46:24Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-03-21T13:45:35Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-03-07T08:12:42Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-03-04T15:41:38Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-03-04T07:45:37Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-02-29T14:35:34Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Energy transformer

2015-10-15T19:45:13Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Extend the definition==
The definition does not really sound right currently. Is there anthing better?[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 15 October 2015, 13:25 (CEST)
:An energy transformer is a device used to convert or, in other words, to transform energy from one form to another. "For example, an internal combustion engine converts the potential chemical energy in gasoline and oxygen into thermal energy which, by causing pressure and performing work on the pistons, is transformed into the mechanical energy that accelerates the vehicle (increasing its kinetic energy)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transformation [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 15 October 2015, 21:45 (CEST)
</div>

Talk:Oemof

2015-06-16T07:44:57Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Planned release date==
When do you expect the project to be opened up to the public? [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 16 June 2015, 09:44 (CEST)
</div>

Talk:2nd Open Energy Modelling Workshop

2015-02-24T08:26:53Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Agenda of the WS April 2015==
Should we gather and discuss topics for the agenda here? So far we have: * who is who * objectives of the openmod initiative - do we want to become a platform for actually sharing open energy data and models, - do we rather want to stay an initiative promoting the idea of open energy modelling * projects planned or already in work concerning open data and open modeling * do we want to establish a conference for open energy system modelling? (Berit is in exchange with Professor Wittmann, activ at ASIM (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Simulation= association for simulation); she will have a discussion in march at a workshop with his group if it makes sense to establish an own section under the ASIM)[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 27 January 2015, 16:22 (CET)
:from Eva: > Diskutieren würde ich gerne welche konkreten Projekte wir im Rahmen > von energymod verwirklichen können, > die einen intelligente Symbiose unserer day-to-day arbeit und eben > mehr schaffen können. [[User:Frauke|Frauke]] 6 February 2015, 13:46 (CET)
::from Katrin: Was m.E. sicher vielen helfen würde, wäre eine Übersicht zu erarbeiten, welche Daten bereits frei zur Verfügung stehen (-> open data als Teil von open source). Ähnlich wie die Model fact sheets könnte man hier jeweils die Quelle, Genauigkeit und Co. der Verfügbaren Datenquellen auflisten. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 24 February 2015, 09:26 (CET)
:Berit: "wie will openmod initiative nach außen auftreten und wo? (Was wollen wir damit erreichen?)" [[User:Frauke|Frauke]] 9 February 2015, 12:56 (CET)
</div>

Talk:2nd Open Energy Modelling Workshop

2015-02-24T08:26:17Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Agenda of the WS April 2015==
Should we gather and discuss topics for the agenda here? So far we have: * who is who * objectives of the openmod initiative - do we want to become a platform for actually sharing open energy data and models, - do we rather want to stay an initiative promoting the idea of open energy modelling * projects planned or already in work concerning open data and open modeling * do we want to establish a conference for open energy system modelling? (Berit is in exchange with Professor Wittmann, activ at ASIM (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Simulation= association for simulation); she will have a discussion in march at a workshop with his group if it makes sense to establish an own section under the ASIM)[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 27 January 2015, 16:22 (CET)
:from Eva: > Diskutieren würde ich gerne welche konkreten Projekte wir im Rahmen > von energymod verwirklichen können, > die einen intelligente Symbiose unserer day-to-day arbeit und eben > mehr schaffen können. [[User:Frauke|Frauke]] 6 February 2015, 13:46 (CET)
::Was m.E. sicher vielen helfen würde, wäre eine Übersicht zu erarbeiten, welche Daten bereits frei zur Verfügung stehen (-> open data als Teil von open source). Ähnlich wie die Model fact sheets könnte man hier jeweils die Quelle, Genauigkeit und Co. der Verfügbaren Datenquellen auflisten. [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 24 February 2015, 09:26 (CET)
:Berit: "wie will openmod initiative nach außen auftreten und wo? (Was wollen wir damit erreichen?)" [[User:Frauke|Frauke]] 9 February 2015, 12:56 (CET)
</div>

Talk:2nd Open Energy Modelling Workshop

2015-02-13T13:40:20Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Agenda of the WS April 2015==
Should we gather and discuss topics for the agenda here? So far we have: * who is who * objectives of the openmod initiative - do we want to become a platform for actually sharing open energy data and models, - do we rather want to stay an initiative promoting the idea of open energy modelling * projects planned or already in work concerning open data and open modeling * do we want to establish a conference for open energy system modelling? (Berit is in exchange with Professor Wittmann, activ at ASIM (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Simulation= association for simulation); she will have a discussion in march at a workshop with his group if it makes sense to establish an own section under the ASIM)[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 27 January 2015, 16:22 (CET)
:from Eva: > Diskutieren würde ich gerne welche konkreten Projekte wir im Rahmen > von energymod verwirklichen können, > die einen intelligente Symbiose unserer day-to-day arbeit und eben > mehr schaffen können. [[User:Frauke|Frauke]] 6 February 2015, 13:46 (CET)
:Berit: "wie will openmod initiative nach außen auftreten und wo? (Was wollen wir damit erreichen?)" [[User:Frauke|Frauke]] 9 February 2015, 12:56 (CET)
</div>

Talk:2nd Open Energy Modelling Workshop

2015-02-13T13:40:00Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Agenda of the WS April 2015==
Should we gather and discuss topics for the agenda here? So far we have: * who is who * objectives of the openmod initiative - do we want to become a platform for actually sharing open energy data and models, - do we rather want to stay an initiative promoting the idea of open energy modelling * projects planned or already in work concerning open data and open modeling * do we want to establish a conferenc for open energy system modelling? (Berit is in exchange with Professor Wittmann, activ at ASIM (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Simulation= association for simulation); she will have a discussion in march at a workshop with his group if it makes sense to establish an own section under the ASIM)[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 27 January 2015, 16:22 (CET)
:from Eva: > Diskutieren würde ich gerne welche konkreten Projekte wir im Rahmen > von energymod verwirklichen können, > die einen intelligente Symbiose unserer day-to-day arbeit und eben > mehr schaffen können. [[User:Frauke|Frauke]] 6 February 2015, 13:46 (CET)
:Berit: "wie will openmod initiative nach außen auftreten und wo? (Was wollen wir damit erreichen?)" [[User:Frauke|Frauke]] 9 February 2015, 12:56 (CET)
</div>

Talk:2nd Open Energy Modelling Workshop

2015-01-27T15:26:46Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:2nd Open Energy Modelling Workshop

2015-01-27T15:25:18Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Agenda of the WS April 2015==
 [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 27 January 2015, 16:22 (CET)
</div>

Talk:2nd Open Energy Modelling Workshop

2015-01-27T15:22:35Z

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

<div class="NiceDiscussions START">

==Agenda of the WS April 2015==
- who is who - objectives of the openmod initiative - do we want to become a platform for actually sharing open energy data and models, - do we rather want to stay an initiative promoting the idea of open energy modelling - projects planned or already in work concerning open data and open modeling [[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 27 January 2015, 16:22 (CET)
</div>