2016-07-07T11:49:26Z

Eva Wiechers:

This category uses the form [[Has default form::GlossaryTermForm]].<br/>

= FAQ<br/> =

=== What is a glossary? ===

A glossary, also known as a vocabulary, or clavis, is an alphabetical list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with the definitions for those terms. [wikipedia]

=== What is the main purpose?<br/> ===

We often face misunderstandings in discussions about energy system modeling while talking about it from different points of view or different disciplines.This glossary has the aim to develop a common understanding of terms in the field of energy system modelling.

=== How to handle multiple definitons for one term?<br/> ===

Every term can have several definitions. They are serially numbered. In this way the different understandings of a term become obvious and can be better understood and handled in future. The usage of terms can be discussed openly without dictating a certain definition.

=== What are the abbreviation used for? ===

'''Abbreviations''' are often used in code. Models often define own abbreviations, which differ from the ones used in other models. Therefore, different abbreviations be added (example: abbreviations for the term "abbreviation": abb. [Model X], abbr. [Model Y]).

=== How to handle different terms for the same thing?<br/> ===

'''<span id="Synonyms" class="mw-headline">Synonyms</span>.

DatabaseRules

2016-06-10T07:29:51Z

Eva Wiechers:

Data quality

2016-06-10T07:17:36Z

Eva Wiechers: /* Data Quality in the oedb */

DatabaseRules

2016-06-10T06:35:11Z

Eva Wiechers: /* Processed Data (calc) - Row Annotation */

= Data Documentation<br/> =

All data included in the databases has be documented!

All abreviations have to be documentated in the Glossary!

= Naming of Data =

== Database Name<br/> ==

The name of the database is '''oedb'''

<br/>

== Database Schema ==

The structure of the database is realised via the naming of the schema!

*always lower case
*no points, no commas
*no spaces
*no dates
*use underscores

<br/>

*name starts with type of schema
*#'''orig''' for original data
*#'''calc''' for processed data

*name includes distinct subject area or source

Example: ''orig_vg250''

<br/>

== <br/>Database Table ==

*always lower case<br/>
*no points, no commas<br/>
*no spaces<br/>
*no dates<br/>
*use underscores

<br/>

#name starts with the source (e.g. zensus)
#main value (e.g. population)
#if separated by [attribute] (e.g. by_gender)
#with resolution [tupel] (e.g. per_mun)

Example: ''zensus_population_by_gender_per_mun''<br/>

= Data Integrity<br/> =

== General ==

*Primary Key [PK]<br/>
*Grants to oeuser

<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

== Geografic Data<br/> ==

*Attribut name is '''geom'''
*Data type is '''geometry''' (or raster)
*One of the '''Geometric Types''' is defined ([https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/datatype-geometric.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/datatype-geometric.html])
*The '''CRS''' is defined as EPSG ([http://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/ http://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/])
**Original data stays with the original CRS!
**Prefered CRS of the oedb are:<br/>

#WGS84 - EPSG: 4326 ([http://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/4326/ http://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/4326/])
#ETRS89 / ETRS-LAEA - EPSG: 3035 ([http://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/3035/ http://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/3035/])

*Spacial index '''GIST'''

<br/>

= Data Referencing =

=== Original Data (orig)<br/> ===

Tables are annotated by a comment in form of a json string:<br/>

<pre>{"Name": "The Full Name",
"Source": ["Name", "www.website.com / registation required"],
"Reference date": ["2013"],
"Date of collection": ["01.08.2013"],
"Original file": ["346-22-5.xls"],
"Spatial resolution": ["Germany"],
"Description": ["Example Data (annual totals)", "Regional level: national"],

"Table fields": [
{"name":"id",
"description"Unique identifier"",
"description_german":"",
"unit":"" },

{"name":"year",
"description"Reference Year"",
"description_german":"",
"unit":"" },

{"name":"example_value",
"description"Some important value"",
"description_german":"",
"unit":"EUR" }],

"Changes":[
{ "name":"Joe Nobody",
"mail":"joe.nobody@gmail.com (fake)",
"date":"16.06.2014",
"comment":"Created table" },

{ "name":"Joana Anybody",
"mail":"joana.anybody@gmail.com (fake)",
"date":"17.07.2014",
"comment":"Translated field names"}],

"ToDo": ["Some datasets are odd -> Check numbers against another data"],
"Licence": ["Licence – Version 2.0 (dl-de/by-2-0; [http://www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0])"],
"Instructions for proper use": ["Always state licence"]}</pre><br/>

<br/>

=== Processed Data (calc)<br/> ===

<pre>
{"Name": "Results",<br/>"Date of collection": ["01.08.2013"],<br/>"Spatial resolution": ["Germany"],<br/>"Description": ["Financial key figures of German municipalities (annual totals)", "Regional level: municipalities, association of municipalities"],<br/>

"Table fields": [<br/>{"name":"id",<br/>"description"Unique identifier"",<br/>"description_german":"",<br/>"unit":"" },

{"name":"year",<br/>"description"Reference Year"",<br/>"description_german":"",<br/>"unit":"" },

{"name":"example_value",<br/>"description"Some important value"",<br/>"description_german":"",<br/>"unit":"EUR" }],

"Changes":[<br/> { "name":"Autor1",<br/> "mail":"Autor1@e-mail.com",<br/> "date":"16.06.2014",<br/> "comment":"Created table" },

 { "name":"Autor2",<br/> "mail":"Autor2@e-mail.com",<br/> "date":"17.07.2014",<br/> "comment":"Translated field names"}],

"ToDo": ["Some datasets are odd -> Check numbers against another data"],<br/>"Licence": ["Datenlizenz Deutschland – Namensnennung – Version 2.0 (dl-de/by-2-0; [http://www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0 http://www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0])"],<br/>"Instructions for proper use": ["Always state licence"]}<br/>
</pre>
<br/>

==== Processed Data (calc) - Row Annotation ====

Each row has to be annotated by a json dictionary that must contain the following fields:<br/>

*origin: Link or textual description of the data set this row origins from.<br/>
*method: Method used to calculate this row from above origin (e.g. Link to a python script)<br/>
*assumption: A list of dictionaries. Each dictionary describes an assumption and annotates the affected rows.<br/>
**begin: First column affected by the assumption<br/>
**end: Last column affected by the assumption<br/>
**type: Type of the problem that had to be solved. Each type requires one or more additional keys in this dictionary. Possible types and their required additional keys are:<br/>
***gap: A not all fields could be calculated and/or filled,
****solution: Method that was used to generate date to fill this gap (e.g. linear interpolation)

*multiplicity: A field could be filled by several values
**values: Possible Values that could have been used
***solution: Method that was used to select one value (e.g. Minimum)

<br/>An examplatory dictionary:<br/><pre>
{
"origin":"https://data.openmod-initiative.org/data/oedb/orig_db/table
"method":"https://github.com/openego/data_processing/blob/master/calc_ego_substation/Voronoi_ehv.sql"
"assumptions":
[
{
"type": "gap"
"begin": "step_15"
"end": "step_34"
"solution": "linear_interpolation"
}
]
}
</pre>

Wiki for collaborative, open source modelling

2016-06-09T11:40:43Z

Eva Wiechers:

<div><div>([[,|http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/]] or [http://platform.openmod-initiative.org/wiki http://platform.openmod-initiative.org/wiki])</div><div></div></div>
The wiki provides information as well for non-modellers or newbies in the modelling field as for model developers. The presented information is developed collaboratively (i.e. discussions in the background).

<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

= Glossary =

[[Category:Glossary|http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Category:Glossary]]

'''Just having a look'''<br/>

The user, who visits the glossary just to have a look, finds the given terms in alphabetical order. With a click on a term she/he gets to a wiki page showing the term and its definition as well as, if existing, its sub-terms and other related terms (ontology).

'''Searching a definition'''

The wish to clarify the terminology is not limited to beginners and non-modellers, because some terms might be used differently or be vague. A user studying a [[Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios|fact sheet]] might come across a term, that can be hardly interpreted. In order to get to know, how a term is used and understood in the openmod community, the user types the term into a search field and selects the glossary search. The search results will list all glossary entries whose titles or explanations match. With a click on one of the search results the user gets to the wiki page of the selected term.<br/>

'''Giving and discussing a definition'''

A logged-in user can on the one hand create a new glossary page in the wiki in order to give a definition of a new term. On the other hand she/he can participate in the discussions belonging to existing glossary entries as well as she/he can change the glossary entries themselves.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

The glossary is made up by the wiki pages, which are part of the category called “glossary” (see also).

<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

= Quality criteria =

As a result of an ongoing discussion process (in the openmod wiki or another specified place) the user finds quality criteria for data, assumptions, models, scenarios and open source code in the openmod wiki. For example:<br/>

*Data: source provided, reliable source, licence given, structure of data (i.e. machine readability etc.), ...
*Models: external validation, plausability tests passed, active community, up-to-date and good documentation (see also [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rg6f9iGyVcW7o4SolGi_cstwa66tZiOMVQyzmT1PRsA/edit?pref=2&pli=1 here]), [[Best practices for model websites|good model presentation]] incl. giving an [https://typo3.org/extensions/repository/ overview of available extensions] etc. There is a certain overlap with the elements of the model fact sheet, but here the best practice is presented / discussed.<br/>
*Assumptions: ..
*Scenarios: …plausability tests passed...,...
*Open Source Code: additional to the criteria for good models: good code documentation, coding guidelines and developer documentation, ...

Specifications / explanations are also given here. The user can also participate in the discussion process.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

<br/>

<br/>

= openmod Activities / Events =

As up to now the user finds here the wiki pages for the past and coming events of the openmod initiative with links to the protocols and presentations.

(Hint: The upcoming openmod workshop will also be presented on the main page (“Connect!”).)

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages as before.

<br/>

= Open Licences =

On [[Choosing a license|this wiki page]]  the user finds, as before, information with regard to open source licences, copyrights and copylefts.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages as before.

<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

= Best practice guide for collaborative modelling =

[[Guide for collaborative modelling|Guide for collaborative modelling]]

On these wiki pages the user finds a selection of tools, energy system modellers recommend / use for the collaborative open source model development. Moreover, proven work flows are presented by users for users, for example:

*Designing communication channels for a project
*Usage of issues and labels on GitHubs / issue management
*(git work flows)
*using git for collaborative work on documents and papers (including links to good tutorials like this [https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/ one])
*(regular) web conferences / chats and their rules (e.g. discussing points on the agenda / problems only based on existing suggestions / solution porposals)
*Good real-life meetings (incl. organising events for the developer community like [http://t3board15.typo3.org/ http://t3board15.typo3.org/])
*Writing good protocols (documentation of agreements)
*Roles in the collaborative open source model development (lead developer, release lead etc.)
*Decision making processes
*Asking the community (mailing list or Question and Answer (Q&A) on Stack Overflow with preferred tag)
*perhaps also presentation of what didn't work

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

= Coding Rules / Guidelines / Standards =

The model developers document and discuss their rules / guidelines for the coding of energy system models and their components on these wiki pages in order to establish good practice and perhaps to facilitate the process of model integration (see also [[Discussion: Ways of model integration|here]]). The model developers might use the annual openmod workshops to collaboratively develop these best practice standards for software design.

Examples for modelling with Python could be:

*PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals): PEP 0008 for the main text and PEP 0257 for docstring conventions
*Using pylint for Python models to check the quality of the model code
*(Python 3.5 standard because of the type hints)

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

Wiki for collaborative, open source modelling

2016-06-09T11:39:17Z

Eva Wiechers: /* Best practice guide for collaborative modelling */

<div><div>([[http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/, open source modelling|http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/]] or [http://platform.openmod-initiative.org/wiki http://platform.openmod-initiative.org/wiki])</div><div></div></div>
The wiki provides information as well for non-modellers or newbies in the modelling field as for model developers. The presented information is developed collaboratively (i.e. discussions in the background).

<br/>

<br/>

= Glossary =
http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Category:Glossary

'''Just having a look'''<br/>

The user, who visits the glossary just to have a look, finds the given terms in alphabetical order. With a click on a term she/he gets to a wiki page showing the term and its definition as well as, if existing, its sub-terms and other related terms (ontology).

'''Searching a definition'''

The wish to clarify the terminology is not limited to beginners and non-modellers, because some terms might be used differently or be vague. A user studying a [[Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios|fact sheet]] might come across a term, that can be hardly interpreted. In order to get to know, how a term is used and understood in the openmod community, the user types the term into a search field and selects the glossary search. The search results will list all glossary entries whose titles or explanations match. With a click on one of the search results the user gets to the wiki page of the selected term.<br/>

'''Giving and discussing a definition'''

A logged-in user can on the one hand create a new glossary page in the wiki in order to give a definition of a new term. On the other hand she/he can participate in the discussions belonging to existing glossary entries as well as she/he can change the glossary entries themselves.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

The glossary is made up by the wiki pages, which are part of the category called “glossary” (see also).

<br/>

<br/>

= Quality criteria =

As a result of an ongoing discussion process (in the openmod wiki or another specified place) the user finds quality criteria for data, assumptions, models, scenarios and open source code in the openmod wiki. For example:<br/>

*Data: source provided, reliable source, licence given, structure of data (i.e. machine readability etc.), ...
*Models: external validation, plausability tests passed, active community, up-to-date and good documentation (see also [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rg6f9iGyVcW7o4SolGi_cstwa66tZiOMVQyzmT1PRsA/edit?pref=2&pli=1 here]), [[Best practices for model websites|good model presentation]] incl. giving an [https://typo3.org/extensions/repository/ overview of available extensions] etc. There is a certain overlap with the elements of the model fact sheet, but here the best practice is presented / discussed.<br/>
*Assumptions: ..
*Scenarios: …plausability tests passed...,...
*Open Source Code: additional to the criteria for good models: good code documentation, coding guidelines and developer documentation, ...

Specifications / explanations are also given here. The user can also participate in the discussion process.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

<br/>

<br/>

= openmod Activities / Events =

As up to now the user finds here the wiki pages for the past and coming events of the openmod initiative with links to the protocols and presentations.

(Hint: The upcoming openmod workshop will also be presented on the main page (“Connect!”).)

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages as before.

<br/>

= Open Licences =

On [[Choosing a license|this wiki page]]  the user finds, as before, information with regard to open source licences, copyrights and copylefts.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages as before.

<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

= Best practice guide for collaborative modelling =

[[Guide for collaborative modelling|Guide for collaborative modelling]]

On these wiki pages the user finds a selection of tools, energy system modellers recommend / use for the collaborative open source model development. Moreover, proven work flows are presented by users for users, for example:

*Designing communication channels for a project
*Usage of issues and labels on GitHubs / issue management
*(git work flows)
*using git for collaborative work on documents and papers (including links to good tutorials like this [https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/ one])
*(regular) web conferences / chats and their rules (e.g. discussing points on the agenda / problems only based on existing suggestions / solution porposals)
*Good real-life meetings (incl. organising events for the developer community like [http://t3board15.typo3.org/ http://t3board15.typo3.org/])
*Writing good protocols (documentation of agreements)
*Roles in the collaborative open source model development (lead developer, release lead etc.)
*Decision making processes
*Asking the community (mailing list or Question and Answer (Q&A) on Stack Overflow with preferred tag)
*perhaps also presentation of what didn't work

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

<br/>

<br/>

= Coding Rules / Guidelines / Standards =

The model developers document and discuss their rules / guidelines for the coding of energy system models and their components on these wiki pages in order to establish good practice and perhaps to facilitate the process of model integration (see also [[Discussion: Ways of model integration|here]]). The model developers might use the annual openmod workshops to collaboratively develop these best practice standards for software design.

Examples for modelling with Python could be:

*PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals): PEP 0008 for the main text and PEP 0257 for docstring conventions
*Using pylint for Python models to check the quality of the model code
*(Python 3.5 standard because of the type hints)

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

Wiki for collaborative, open source modelling

2016-06-09T11:36:48Z

Eva Wiechers: /* Best practice guide for collaborative modelling */

<div><div>([[http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/, open source modelling|http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/]] or [http://platform.openmod-initiative.org/wiki http://platform.openmod-initiative.org/wiki])</div><div></div></div>
The wiki provides information as well for non-modellers or newbies in the modelling field as for model developers. The presented information is developed collaboratively (i.e. discussions in the background).

<br/>

<br/>

= Glossary =
http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Category:Glossary

'''Just having a look'''<br/>

The user, who visits the glossary just to have a look, finds the given terms in alphabetical order. With a click on a term she/he gets to a wiki page showing the term and its definition as well as, if existing, its sub-terms and other related terms (ontology).

'''Searching a definition'''

The wish to clarify the terminology is not limited to beginners and non-modellers, because some terms might be used differently or be vague. A user studying a [[Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios|fact sheet]] might come across a term, that can be hardly interpreted. In order to get to know, how a term is used and understood in the openmod community, the user types the term into a search field and selects the glossary search. The search results will list all glossary entries whose titles or explanations match. With a click on one of the search results the user gets to the wiki page of the selected term.<br/>

'''Giving and discussing a definition'''

A logged-in user can on the one hand create a new glossary page in the wiki in order to give a definition of a new term. On the other hand she/he can participate in the discussions belonging to existing glossary entries as well as she/he can change the glossary entries themselves.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

The glossary is made up by the wiki pages, which are part of the category called “glossary” (see also).

<br/>

<br/>

= Quality criteria =

As a result of an ongoing discussion process (in the openmod wiki or another specified place) the user finds quality criteria for data, assumptions, models, scenarios and open source code in the openmod wiki. For example:<br/>

*Data: source provided, reliable source, licence given, structure of data (i.e. machine readability etc.), ...
*Models: external validation, plausability tests passed, active community, up-to-date and good documentation (see also [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rg6f9iGyVcW7o4SolGi_cstwa66tZiOMVQyzmT1PRsA/edit?pref=2&pli=1 here]), [[Best practices for model websites|good model presentation]] incl. giving an [https://typo3.org/extensions/repository/ overview of available extensions] etc. There is a certain overlap with the elements of the model fact sheet, but here the best practice is presented / discussed.<br/>
*Assumptions: ..
*Scenarios: …plausability tests passed...,...
*Open Source Code: additional to the criteria for good models: good code documentation, coding guidelines and developer documentation, ...

Specifications / explanations are also given here. The user can also participate in the discussion process.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

<br/>

<br/>

= openmod Activities / Events =

As up to now the user finds here the wiki pages for the past and coming events of the openmod initiative with links to the protocols and presentations.

(Hint: The upcoming openmod workshop will also be presented on the main page (“Connect!”).)

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages as before.

<br/>

= Open Licences =

On [[Choosing a license|this wiki page]]  the user finds, as before, information with regard to open source licences, copyrights and copylefts.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages as before.

<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

= Best practice guide for collaborative modelling =

[[Best_practice_guide_for_collaborative_modelling|Best practice guide for collaborative modelling]]

On these wiki pages the user finds a selection of tools, energy system modellers recommend / use for the collaborative open source model development. Moreover, proven work flows are presented by users for users, for example:

*Designing communication channels for a project
*Usage of issues and labels on GitHubs / issue management
*(git work flows)
*using git for collaborative work on documents and papers (including links to good tutorials like this [https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/ one])
*(regular) web conferences / chats and their rules (e.g. discussing points on the agenda / problems only based on existing suggestions / solution porposals)
*Good real-life meetings (incl. organising events for the developer community like [http://t3board15.typo3.org/ http://t3board15.typo3.org/])
*Writing good protocols (documentation of agreements)
*Roles in the collaborative open source model development (lead developer, release lead etc.)
*Decision making processes
*Asking the community (mailing list or Question and Answer (Q&A) on Stack Overflow with preferred tag)
*perhaps also presentation of what didn't work

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

<br/>

<br/>

= Coding Rules / Guidelines / Standards =

The model developers document and discuss their rules / guidelines for the coding of energy system models and their components on these wiki pages in order to establish good practice and perhaps to facilitate the process of model integration (see also [[Discussion: Ways of model integration|here]]). The model developers might use the annual openmod workshops to collaboratively develop these best practice standards for software design.

Examples for modelling with Python could be:

*PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals): PEP 0008 for the main text and PEP 0257 for docstring conventions
*Using pylint for Python models to check the quality of the model code
*(Python 3.5 standard because of the type hints)

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

Wiki for collaborative, open source modelling

2016-06-09T10:15:16Z

Eva Wiechers: /* Glossary */

<div><div>([[http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/, open source modelling|http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/]] or [http://platform.openmod-initiative.org/wiki http://platform.openmod-initiative.org/wiki])</div><div></div></div>
The wiki provides information as well for non-modellers or newbies in the modelling field as for model developers. The presented information is developed collaboratively (i.e. discussions in the background).

<br/>

<br/>

= Glossary =
http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Category:Glossary

'''Just having a look'''<br/>

The user, who visits the glossary just to have a look, finds the given terms in alphabetical order. With a click on a term she/he gets to a wiki page showing the term and its definition as well as, if existing, its sub-terms and other related terms (ontology).

'''Searching a definition'''

The wish to clarify the terminology is not limited to beginners and non-modellers, because some terms might be used differently or be vague. A user studying a [[Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios|fact sheet]] might come across a term, that can be hardly interpreted. In order to get to know, how a term is used and understood in the openmod community, the user types the term into a search field and selects the glossary search. The search results will list all glossary entries whose titles or explanations match. With a click on one of the search results the user gets to the wiki page of the selected term.<br/>

'''Giving and discussing a definition'''

A logged-in user can on the one hand create a new glossary page in the wiki in order to give a definition of a new term. On the other hand she/he can participate in the discussions belonging to existing glossary entries as well as she/he can change the glossary entries themselves.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

The glossary is made up by the wiki pages, which are part of the category called “glossary” (see also).

<br/>

<br/>

= Quality criteria =

As a result of an ongoing discussion process (in the openmod wiki or another specified place) the user finds quality criteria for data, assumptions, models, scenarios and open source code in the openmod wiki. For example:<br/>

*Data: source provided, reliable source, licence given, structure of data (i.e. machine readability etc.), ...
*Models: external validation, plausability tests passed, active community, up-to-date and good documentation (see also [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rg6f9iGyVcW7o4SolGi_cstwa66tZiOMVQyzmT1PRsA/edit?pref=2&pli=1 here]), [[Best practices for model websites|good model presentation]] incl. giving an [https://typo3.org/extensions/repository/ overview of available extensions] etc. There is a certain overlap with the elements of the model fact sheet, but here the best practice is presented / discussed.<br/>
*Assumptions: ..
*Scenarios: …plausability tests passed...,...
*Open Source Code: additional to the criteria for good models: good code documentation, coding guidelines and developer documentation, ...

Specifications / explanations are also given here. The user can also participate in the discussion process.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

<br/>

<br/>

= openmod Activities / Events =

As up to now the user finds here the wiki pages for the past and coming events of the openmod initiative with links to the protocols and presentations.

(Hint: The upcoming openmod workshop will also be presented on the main page (“Connect!”).)

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages as before.

<br/>

= Open Licences =

On [[Choosing a license|this wiki page]]  the user finds, as before, information with regard to open source licences, copyrights and copylefts.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages as before.

<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

= Best practice guide for collaborative modelling =

On these wiki pages the user finds a selection of tools, energy system modellers recommend / use for the collaborative open source model development. Moreover, proven work flows are presented by users for users, for example:

*Designing communication channels for a project
*Usage of issues and labels on GitHubs / issue management
*(git work flows)
*using git for collaborative work on documents and papers (including links to good tutorials like this [https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/ one])
*(regular) web conferences / chats and their rules (e.g. discussing points on the agenda / problems only based on existing suggestions / solution porposals)
*Good real-life meetings (incl. organising events for the developer community like [http://t3board15.typo3.org/ http://t3board15.typo3.org/])
*Writing good protocols (documentation of agreements)
*Roles in the collaborative open source model development (lead developer, release lead etc.)
*Decision making processes
*Asking the community (mailing list or Question and Answer (Q&A) on Stack Overflow with preferred tag)
*perhaps also presentation of what didn't work

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

<br/>

<br/>

= Coding Rules / Guidelines / Standards =

The model developers document and discuss their rules / guidelines for the coding of energy system models and their components on these wiki pages in order to establish good practice and perhaps to facilitate the process of model integration (see also [[Discussion: Ways of model integration|here]]). The model developers might use the annual openmod workshops to collaboratively develop these best practice standards for software design.

Examples for modelling with Python could be:

*PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals): PEP 0008 for the main text and PEP 0257 for docstring conventions
*Using pylint for Python models to check the quality of the model code
*(Python 3.5 standard because of the type hints)

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

Wiki for collaborative, open source modelling

2016-06-09T10:10:29Z

Eva Wiechers: /* Glossary */

<div><div>([[http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/, open source modelling|http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/]] or [http://platform.openmod-initiative.org/wiki http://platform.openmod-initiative.org/wiki])</div><div></div></div>
The wiki provides information as well for non-modellers or newbies in the modelling field as for model developers. The presented information is developed collaboratively (i.e. discussions in the background).

<br/>

<br/>

= Glossary =

'''Just having a look'''<br/>

The user, who visits the glossary just to have a look, finds the given terms in alphabetical order. With a click on a term she/he gets to a wiki page showing the term and its definition as well as, if existing, its sub-terms and other related terms (ontology).

'''Searching a definition'''

The wish to clarify the terminology is not limited to beginners and non-modellers, because some terms might be used differently or be vague. A user studying a [[Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios|fact sheet]] might come across a term, that can be hardly interpreted. In order to get to know, how a term is used and understood in the openmod community, the user types the term into a search field and selects the glossary search. The search results will list all glossary entries whose titles or explanations match. With a click on one of the search results the user gets to the wiki page of the selected term.<br/>

'''Giving and discussing a definition'''

A logged-in user can on the one hand create a new glossary page in the wiki in order to give a definition of a new term. On the other hand she/he can participate in the discussions belonging to existing glossary entries as well as she/he can change the glossary entries themselves.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

The glossary is made up by the wiki pages, which are part of the category called “glossary” (see also).

<br/>

<br/>

= Quality criteria =

As a result of an ongoing discussion process (in the openmod wiki or another specified place) the user finds quality criteria for data, assumptions, models, scenarios and open source code in the openmod wiki. For example:<br/>

*Data: source provided, reliable source, licence given, structure of data (i.e. machine readability etc.), ...
*Models: external validation, plausability tests passed, active community, up-to-date and good documentation (see also [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rg6f9iGyVcW7o4SolGi_cstwa66tZiOMVQyzmT1PRsA/edit?pref=2&pli=1 here]), [[Best practices for model websites|good model presentation]] incl. giving an [https://typo3.org/extensions/repository/ overview of available extensions] etc. There is a certain overlap with the elements of the model fact sheet, but here the best practice is presented / discussed.<br/>
*Assumptions: ..
*Scenarios: …plausability tests passed...,...
*Open Source Code: additional to the criteria for good models: good code documentation, coding guidelines and developer documentation, ...

Specifications / explanations are also given here. The user can also participate in the discussion process.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

<br/>

<br/>

= openmod Activities / Events =

As up to now the user finds here the wiki pages for the past and coming events of the openmod initiative with links to the protocols and presentations.

(Hint: The upcoming openmod workshop will also be presented on the main page (“Connect!”).)

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages as before.

<br/>

= Open Licences =

On [[Choosing a license|this wiki page]]  the user finds, as before, information with regard to open source licences, copyrights and copylefts.

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages as before.

<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

= Best practice guide for collaborative modelling =

On these wiki pages the user finds a selection of tools, energy system modellers recommend / use for the collaborative open source model development. Moreover, proven work flows are presented by users for users, for example:

*Designing communication channels for a project
*Usage of issues and labels on GitHubs / issue management
*(git work flows)
*using git for collaborative work on documents and papers (including links to good tutorials like this [https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/ one])
*(regular) web conferences / chats and their rules (e.g. discussing points on the agenda / problems only based on existing suggestions / solution porposals)
*Good real-life meetings (incl. organising events for the developer community like [http://t3board15.typo3.org/ http://t3board15.typo3.org/])
*Writing good protocols (documentation of agreements)
*Roles in the collaborative open source model development (lead developer, release lead etc.)
*Decision making processes
*Asking the community (mailing list or Question and Answer (Q&A) on Stack Overflow with preferred tag)
*perhaps also presentation of what didn't work

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

<br/>

<br/>

= Coding Rules / Guidelines / Standards =

The model developers document and discuss their rules / guidelines for the coding of energy system models and their components on these wiki pages in order to establish good practice and perhaps to facilitate the process of model integration (see also [[Discussion: Ways of model integration|here]]). The model developers might use the annual openmod workshops to collaboratively develop these best practice standards for software design.

Examples for modelling with Python could be:

*PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals): PEP 0008 for the main text and PEP 0257 for docstring conventions
*Using pylint for Python models to check the quality of the model code
*(Python 3.5 standard because of the type hints)

<u>'''Implementation:'''</u>

Wiki pages.

Proposal for the OpenEnergy Platform

2016-05-17T14:00:00Z

Eva Wiechers: /* Preliminary note */

'''Concept of expanding the openmod online presence to an OpenEnergy Platform'''<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

= <font face="Liberation Sans, sans-serif"><font size="4" style="font-size: 14pt">Preliminary note</font></font><br/> =

The concept of the OpenEnergy Platform is under development at the moment. Theses wiki pages are constantly updated and are meant to give an overview of the objectives as well as the current state of the concept and implementation of the different components forming the OpenEnergy Platform.<br/>

<br/>This platform got the working title OpenEnergy Platform (OEP). Considering the low number of participants in the undertaken decision making process with regard to the naming, we decided to continue with the name, which was used until now. In this way we hope to avoid misunderstandigs.

<br/>

Many of the activities regarding the OpenEnergy Plattform, undertaken by ZNES, RLI, Next Energy and the University of Madgeburg, are currently (08/2015 until 08/2016) part of the project ''open_eGo'', which itself is funded by the German Federal Ministy of Economic Affairs and Energy.

<br/>

<span lang="en-GB">The project proposal was written before the openmod initiative was established </span><span lang="en-GB">and was promoted by the project partners for the same reasons for which they also participated in the foundation of the openmod initative. Now, the OpenEnergy Platform team wants to avoid double structures and use their resources to support the openmod initiative.</span>

<span lang="en-GB">During the workshop in London </span><span lang="en-GB">(09/2015) </span><span lang="en-GB">a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/16QY4U-DBXhZVxXnpugVkATDtp4SEMjXTgdnYX4CRKWA/edit?pref=2&pli=1 break-out group] </span><span lang="en-GB">discussed the idea of an OpenEnergy Platform and different aspects. The participants agreed on expanding the existing online presence of the openmod initiative. The collected suggestions were </span><span lang="en-GB">advanced during a [[Discussing an openEnergy Platform|workshop in October 2015 in Berlin]].</span><span lang="en-GB"></span>

<br/>

Thanks to all, who support the development of our common environment with critical and constructive remarks. In other words, please, feel free to discuss the concept with us.<br/>

<br/>

= <font face="Liberation Sans, sans-serif"><font size="4" style="font-size: 14pt">Objectives of the OpenEnergy Platform (OEP)</font></font> =

The objectives of the OpenEnergy Platform are defined as follows:<br/>

*expanding / improving the existing openmod online presence (homepage and wiki) with regard to the wishes and interests of the openmod community
*providing a place to meet and exchange with people interested in open source modelling of energy systems
*giving an overview of open source energy system models
*giving an overview of proprietary energy system models in order to increase the transparency in the field of energy modelling and to do the first step towards code disclosure
*giving an overview of various existing scenarios together with the input-parameters that were used for modelling these scenarios (and maybe together with their outcomes)<font color="#ff3333"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"></span></span></font></span></font>
*offering a place to store and exchange data (raw data and processed data), which are needed for modelling
*offering a place for exchange about modelling related issues (e.g. data quality, model quality etc.)
*<span lang="en-GB">offering advice for good collaborative working practice (rules, guidelines, </span><span lang="en-GB">processes</span><span lang="en-GB">and tools) </span><span lang="en-GB">and general / structural support (by providing a well-organised working platform)</span>

<br/>

= <font face="Liberation Sans, sans-serif"><font size="4" style="font-size: 14pt"><span lang="en-GB">U</span><span lang="en-GB">ser</span><span lang="en-GB">s </span><span lang="en-GB"></span><span lang="en-GB">of the OpenEnergy Platform</span></font></font><br/> =

#model developer: A model developer is a person, who works on the design and code of energy system models.<br/>
#model user: A model user is person who has downloaded / wants to download a model in order to make calculations with own data input and assumptions (scenarios). A model user might become a model developer in future, because she/he might get interested in understanding, improving and expanding the code.<br/>
#non-modeller: A non-modeller is a person, who does not intent to make own calculations with an energy system, but is for example interested in data and results obtained with different models and scenarios. This could be e.g. a climate protection manager working for a municipality, a person working for a NGO or … .

<br/>

= Main page and where it links to<br/> =

([http://openmod-initiative.org/ http://openmod-initiative.org/])<br/>

When the user comes to the main page, she/he sees the openmod logo, a short definition („We are a grass root initiative of modellers from various universities and research institutes across Europe.“), a welcome statement (, the latest news, a tag cloud), [http://openmod-initiative.org/ “Connect!” information] and the overview of (as well as a link to) the provided content, which can be grouped into the following areas:

*[http://openmod-initiative.org/manifesto.html about openmod] (html)
*[[Wiki for collaborative, open source modelling|wiki for collaborative, open source modelling]] incl. glossary, quality criteria, openmod event documentation, open licences, best practice guide
*[[Platform documentation and tutorials|platform documentation and tutorials]]<br/>
*[[News and calendar|news and calendar]]<br/>
*[[Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios|fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios]] (wiki or html)<br/>
*[[Database|database]] (PostgreSQL database with CKAN surface and import tool)
*[[Discussion: Ways of model integration|discussion: Ways of model integration]] (html)<br/>
*[[Discussion area for model specific teams|discussion area for model specific teams]] (maybe)
*archive of the [[Openmod mailing list|openmod mailing list]] (maybe) / subscription of the mailing list
*[http://openmod-initiative.org/ contact, licence and “Impressum”]<br/>

From here the user goes to the different subsections depending on her/his background and reason for coming.

'''<u>Implementation:</u>'''<br/>

The proposed idea means an adjustment and extension of the existing openmod website (openmod-initiative.org/), which will become the connector between the different areas of the OpenEnergy Platform like for example the wiki and the database. Therefore, the user should easily get back to this main page by clicking on the openmod logo, no matter on which site she/he is.<br/>

''Dear openmod community, being in the openmod wiki a click on the openmod logo leads to the main page of the wiki. Could this click lead to the main page instead?''<br/>
<br/>

[[File:OEP concept parts figure.png|center|400pxpx|Parts of the OpenEnergy Platform]]<br/>

[[File:OEP concept urls figure.png|center|400pxpx]]<br/>

= Log-in =

<u>Best case:</u> A user, who wants to edit, add and watch articles, statements or other content (including data) on the OpenEnergy Platform, logs in or if not done before creates an account in order to be able to log in. At the same time a profile is created, which the users use to present themselves and to find contact information. That means the existing openmod wiki accounts will give access to the function of the entire platform.

The log-in is possible from every single page of the platform. A users, who indicates that she/he forgot her/his password, will be mailed a link to a password reset website.

<u>Current setup / Less-than-perfect solution:</u> A user, who wants to edit, add or watch articles and statements on the OpenEnergy Platform (meaning the openmod wiki), logs in or if not done before creates an account in order to be able to log in. At the same time a profile is created, which the users use to present themselves and and to find contact information.

The log-in is possible from every single page of the wiki. A users, who indicates that she/he forgot her/his password, will be mailed a link to a password reset website.

For changing and uploading data in the [[Database|database]] (and maybe also for editing model and scenario fact sheets) the user needs another account. The main page allows the user to log into the wiki as well as into the other areas.

'''<u>Implementation:</u>'''

In order to achieve the best case the Auth-Plugin of the underlying openmod MediaWiki needs to be redefined. The expected challenge is the export of the account data including the encrypted passwords from the database of the openmod wiki and the import into the user management of the database using CKAN. In case of unsolvable problems with the data transfer the implementation of an additional user management for the database using CKAN is considered as the second best solution.

''Dear openmod community, is someone of you interested in supporting the user management unification?''<br/>

<br/>

= Search function for the entire platform / platform components<br/> =

The user finds a search field on every page of the OpenEnergy Platform. In the drop down menu the user selects which part of the platform is meant to be scanned, for instance the wiki, the glossary or the database. In order to make the search more efficient, the user searching information can choose a term from a list of keywords, that users of the platform use to organise and classify the content (faceted search).

In case of a search inside the database, the user is offered the opportunity to limit the results to a specific geographical area by the means of a map.

Depending on the performance of the data search a scan of the entire platform might be offered. It needs to be taken into account, that this goes with a less detailed scan of the database. For this reason a hint will be displayed: “For a more detailed search, please, use the database search.“

'''<u>Implementation:</u>'''

The search function is based on CKAN and is adjusted to the requirements of the OpenEnergy Platform. This search is a faceted search, meaning keywords (so called tags) are defined and can be searched. On the one hand this search function can scan the tags and descriptions of the datasets in the database in order to find a certain table. On the other hand also a selected dataset in the database can be scanned in order to find a certain term or value.

The search inside of the wiki and the other pages will be integrated into the search function. To do that, the (wiki) pages will be extended by tag fields. In the end the search function can scan the tags as well as the content of the (wiki) pages and present the search results to the user.<br/>

Proposal for the OpenEnergy Platform

2016-05-17T13:05:56Z

Eva Wiechers: /* Preliminary note */

'''Concept of expanding the openmod online presence to an OpenEnergy Platform'''<br/>

<br/>

<br/>

= <font face="Liberation Sans, sans-serif"><font size="4" style="font-size: 14pt">Preliminary note</font></font><br/> =

The concept of the OpenEnergy Platform is under development at the moment. Theses wiki pages are constantly updated and are meant to give an overview of the objectives as well as the current state of the concept and implementation of the different components forming the OpenEnergy Platform.<br/>

<br/>This platform got the working title OpenEnergy Platform (OEP). Considering the low number of participants in a decision making process with regard to the naming, we decided to continue with the name, which was used until now. In this way we hope to avoid misunderstandigs.

<br/>

Many of the activities regarding the OpenEnergy Plattform, undertaken by ZNES, RLI, Next Energy and the University of Madgeburg, are currently (08/2015 until 08/2016) part of the project ''open_eGo'', which itself is funded by the German Federal Ministy of Economic Affairs and Energy.

<span lang="en-GB">The project proposal was written before the openmod initiative was established </span><span lang="en-GB">and was promoted by the project partners for the same reasons for which they also participated in the foundation of the openmod initative. Now, the OpenEnergy Platform team wants to avoid double structures and use their resources to support the openmod initiative.</span>

<span lang="en-GB">During the workshop in London </span><span lang="en-GB">(09/2015) </span><span lang="en-GB">a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/16QY4U-DBXhZVxXnpugVkATDtp4SEMjXTgdnYX4CRKWA/edit?pref=2&pli=1 break-out group] </span><span lang="en-GB">discussed the idea of an OpenEnergy Platform and different aspects. The participants agreed on expanding the existing online presence of the openmod initiative. The collected suggestions were </span><span lang="en-GB">advanced during a [[Discussing an openEnergy Platform|workshop in October 2015 in Berlin]].</span><span lang="en-GB"></span>

Thanks to all, who support the development of our common environment with critical and constructive remarks. In other words, please, feel free to discuss the concept with us.<br/>

<br/>

= <font face="Liberation Sans, sans-serif"><font size="4" style="font-size: 14pt">Objectives of the OpenEnergy Platform (OEP)</font></font> =

The objectives of the OpenEnergy Platform are defined as follows:<br/>

*expanding / improving the existing openmod online presence (homepage and wiki) with regard to the wishes and interests of the openmod community
*providing a place to meet and exchange with people interested in open source modelling of energy systems
*giving an overview of open source energy system models
*giving an overview of proprietary energy system models in order to increase the transparency in the field of energy modelling and to do the first step towards code disclosure
*giving an overview of various existing scenarios together with the input-parameters that were used for modelling these scenarios (and maybe together with their outcomes)<font color="#ff3333"><span style="text-decoration: none"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="font-weight: normal"></span></span></font></span></font>
*offering a place to store and exchange data (raw data and processed data), which are needed for modelling
*offering a place for exchange about modelling related issues (e.g. data quality, model quality etc.)
*<span lang="en-GB">offering advice for good collaborative working practice (rules, guidelines, </span><span lang="en-GB">processes</span><span lang="en-GB">and tools) </span><span lang="en-GB">and general / structural support (by providing a well-organised working platform)</span>

<br/>

= <font face="Liberation Sans, sans-serif"><font size="4" style="font-size: 14pt"><span lang="en-GB">U</span><span lang="en-GB">ser</span><span lang="en-GB">s </span><span lang="en-GB"></span><span lang="en-GB">of the OpenEnergy Platform</span></font></font><br/> =

#model developer: A model developer is a person, who works on the design and code of energy system models.<br/>
#model user: A model user is person who has downloaded / wants to download a model in order to make calculations with own data input and assumptions (scenarios). A model user might become a model developer in future, because she/he might get interested in understanding, improving and expanding the code.<br/>
#non-modeller: A non-modeller is a person, who does not intent to make own calculations with an energy system, but is for example interested in data and results obtained with different models and scenarios. This could be e.g. a climate protection manager working for a municipality, a person working for a NGO or … .

<br/>

= Main page and where it links to<br/> =

([http://openmod-initiative.org/ http://openmod-initiative.org/])<br/>

When the user comes to the main page, she/he sees the openmod logo, a short definition („We are a grass root initiative of modellers from various universities and research institutes across Europe.“), a welcome statement (, the latest news, a tag cloud), [http://openmod-initiative.org/ “Connect!” information] and the overview of (as well as a link to) the provided content, which can be grouped into the following areas:

*[http://openmod-initiative.org/manifesto.html about openmod] (html)
*[[Wiki for collaborative, open source modelling|wiki for collaborative, open source modelling]] incl. glossary, quality criteria, openmod event documentation, open licences, best practice guide
*[[Platform documentation and tutorials|platform documentation and tutorials]]<br/>
*[[News and calendar|news and calendar]]<br/>
*[[Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios|fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios]] (wiki or html)<br/>
*[[Database|database]] (PostgreSQL database with CKAN surface and import tool)
*[[Discussion: Ways of model integration|discussion: Ways of model integration]] (html)<br/>
*[[Discussion area for model specific teams|discussion area for model specific teams]] (maybe)
*archive of the [[Openmod mailing list|openmod mailing list]] (maybe) / subscription of the mailing list
*[http://openmod-initiative.org/ contact, licence and “Impressum”]<br/>

From here the user goes to the different subsections depending on her/his background and reason for coming.

'''<u>Implementation:</u>'''<br/>

The proposed idea means an adjustment and extension of the existing openmod website (openmod-initiative.org/), which will become the connector between the different areas of the OpenEnergy Platform like for example the wiki and the database. Therefore, the user should easily get back to this main page by clicking on the openmod logo, no matter on which site she/he is.<br/>

''Dear openmod community, being in the openmod wiki a click on the openmod logo leads to the main page of the wiki. Could this click lead to the main page instead?''<br/>
<br/>

[[File:OEP concept parts figure.png|center|400pxpx|Parts of the OpenEnergy Platform]]<br/>

[[File:OEP concept urls figure.png|center|400pxpx]]<br/>

= Log-in =

<u>Best case:</u> A user, who wants to edit, add and watch articles, statements or other content (including data) on the OpenEnergy Platform, logs in or if not done before creates an account in order to be able to log in. At the same time a profile is created, which the users use to present themselves and to find contact information. That means the existing openmod wiki accounts will give access to the function of the entire platform.

The log-in is possible from every single page of the platform. A users, who indicates that she/he forgot her/his password, will be mailed a link to a password reset website.

<u>Current setup / Less-than-perfect solution:</u> A user, who wants to edit, add or watch articles and statements on the OpenEnergy Platform (meaning the openmod wiki), logs in or if not done before creates an account in order to be able to log in. At the same time a profile is created, which the users use to present themselves and and to find contact information.

The log-in is possible from every single page of the wiki. A users, who indicates that she/he forgot her/his password, will be mailed a link to a password reset website.

For changing and uploading data in the [[Database|database]] (and maybe also for editing model and scenario fact sheets) the user needs another account. The main page allows the user to log into the wiki as well as into the other areas.

'''<u>Implementation:</u>'''

In order to achieve the best case the Auth-Plugin of the underlying openmod MediaWiki needs to be redefined. The expected challenge is the export of the account data including the encrypted passwords from the database of the openmod wiki and the import into the user management of the database using CKAN. In case of unsolvable problems with the data transfer the implementation of an additional user management for the database using CKAN is considered as the second best solution.

''Dear openmod community, is someone of you interested in supporting the user management unification?''<br/>

<br/>

= Search function for the entire platform / platform components<br/> =

The user finds a search field on every page of the OpenEnergy Platform. In the drop down menu the user selects which part of the platform is meant to be scanned, for instance the wiki, the glossary or the database. In order to make the search more efficient, the user searching information can choose a term from a list of keywords, that users of the platform use to organise and classify the content (faceted search).

In case of a search inside the database, the user is offered the opportunity to limit the results to a specific geographical area by the means of a map.

Depending on the performance of the data search a scan of the entire platform might be offered. It needs to be taken into account, that this goes with a less detailed scan of the database. For this reason a hint will be displayed: “For a more detailed search, please, use the database search.“

'''<u>Implementation:</u>'''

The search function is based on CKAN and is adjusted to the requirements of the OpenEnergy Platform. This search is a faceted search, meaning keywords (so called tags) are defined and can be searched. On the one hand this search function can scan the tags and descriptions of the datasets in the database in order to find a certain table. On the other hand also a selected dataset in the database can be scanned in order to find a certain term or value.

The search inside of the wiki and the other pages will be integrated into the search function. To do that, the (wiki) pages will be extended by tag fields. In the end the search function can scan the tags as well as the content of the (wiki) pages and present the search results to the user.<br/>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-21T21:02:25Z

Eva Wiechers: <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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143534">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)</span>
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations<br/>Alternative suggestion: "Partners"<br/>[General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?]<br/>'''ToDo:''' Change "Institutions" to "Partners" in MF, FF and SF<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104032">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)</span>
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; <br/>@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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304074537">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)</span>
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)".<br/>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".<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318104325">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"?<br/>[General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose of the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104324">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125149">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)</span>
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. <br/>there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different<br/>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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304085516">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)</span>
::::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.<br/>There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose".<br/>Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318123916">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)</span>
:::::framework: delete primary output <br/>model: leave both in general information <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419132807">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:28 (CEST)</span>
:General Question:<br/>Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104452">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)</span>
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added.<br/><br/>'''required fields that I would change to "not required"''':<br/>acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software<br/>'''not required fields that I would change to "required"''':<br/>Open Source, Modelling software<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304091908">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)</span>
:::*"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<br/>*documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added.<br/>*"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option.<br/>*"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format.<br/>*"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future.<br/>*"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field.<br/>*"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*".<br/>*"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131004">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)</span>
::::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? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419124410">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 14:44 (CEST)</span>
:::::Decision:<br/>model file format: not mandatory<br/>modelling software: mandatory <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160421205818">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:58 (CEST)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092921">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)</span>
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131142">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)</span>
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418213803">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)</span>
::::I would prefer in the mathematical properties section.<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419093235">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:32 (CEST)</span>
:::::Ok, will be be moved. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160421205907">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:59 (CEST)</span>
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence?<br/>Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160310165618">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)</span>
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418214225">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)</span>
:::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? <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419093606">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:36 (CEST)</span>
::::Fact sheets passen so nicht ganz; vielleicht mit einigen Feldern die "other" benennen und dann Platz für weitere Einträge lassen kann das ermöglicht werden <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419134344">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:43 (CEST)</span>
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143902">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
: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'<br/>I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304075149">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)</span>
::We are working on the implementation. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318135105">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
:::still missing? Planned to implement? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418214750">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:47 (CEST)</span>
::::Gibt es issue?? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419134500">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:45 (CEST)</span>
:::::GitHub Issue #49 <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160421210225">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 23:02 (CEST)</span>
: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<br/>CLOSED - that's implemented as Eva described it<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304083932">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)</span>
::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. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318142647">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)</span>
:::This is still missing - right? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418214645">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:46 (CEST)</span>
::::Is the separation between "Modeled energy sectors" and "Modeled demand sectors" right?<br/><br/>Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options?<br/>[Coverage; ; options; ] <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419102527">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:25 (CEST)</span>
:::::CLOSED <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419134743">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:47 (CEST)</span>
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point.<br/>I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet.<br/>Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304160402">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)</span>
::output data is not yet mentioned in the fact sheets? we should put that somewhere <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418220743">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:07 (CEST)</span>
:::Access to output data doesn't make sense for Models - only for scenarios <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419135006">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:50 (CEST)</span>
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143955">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
:What is the correct name?<br/>Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4))<br/>"Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model<br/>(Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...)<br/>[Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?]<br/>closed<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104628">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)</span>
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN).<br/>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. <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150437">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)</span>
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'?<br/>[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?]<br/>-> additional software<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104839">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)</span>
::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"<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080332">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)</span>
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080429">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)</span>
::CLOSED - additional software includes all; you can add as many lines as necessary <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419140150">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:01 (CEST)</span>
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)"<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104908">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)</span>
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302130227">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)</span>
:::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? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418215759">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:57 (CEST)</span>
::::Erklärungen ergänzen (ausschreiben) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419140742">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:07 (CEST)</span>
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144029">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)</span>
:closed<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105028">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)</span>
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"?<br/>Is it essential to list all options on the second level?<br/><br/>[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?]<br/>CLOSED<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105343">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)</span>
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug.<br/>How was it meant to look like?<br/>Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier)<br/>gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat)<br/>Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion<br/>renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP;<br/>What is the problem?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150611">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)</span>
: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''' <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092537">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)</span>
::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.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318132624">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)</span>
:::math properties.<br/>because it doesn't depend on the region. <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419141325">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:13 (CEST)</span>
:::CLOSE - see above (suggestion: methematical properties) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419141756">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:17 (CEST)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318143204">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)</span>
::suggestion: properties electrical grid <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419141938">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:19 (CEST)</span>
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144126">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302132721">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)</span>
::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? <br/>Francesco <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160307081242">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)</span>
:::CLOSED - Agreed with Francesco <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419142057">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:20 (CEST)</span>
: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. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154138">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318134427">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)</span>
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding <br/>- solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), <br/>- problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), <br/>- objectives (single, multi)<br/>...<br/><br/>Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: <br/>- complexity (O(x), ...), <br/>- approximation quality<br/>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? <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314133831">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)</span>
::could we put that in the info text of the mathematical model class? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419142643">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:26 (CEST)</span>
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144151">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what?<br/>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. ) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)</span>
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? <br/>Do you agree? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154102">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
:::Yes  - Evas suggestion! <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419143602">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)</span>
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)<br/> I suggest:<br/>e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304155632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options:<br/>* peer-reviewed,<br/>* outcomes cross checked with other models or data<br/>* other + text field<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154216">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)</span>
:::1. is the reference peer-revied?<br/>2. is the model validated?<br/>* cross-checked with other models<br/>* checked with measurements (measured data)<br/>3 other<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419103221">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:32 (CEST)</span>
::::does the validation refer to the model or the reference?<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419143644">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)</span>
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144241">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)</span>
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135123">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
::We will rearrange the set-up. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407131333">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)</span>
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale <br/>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<br/>Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407071514">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach.<br/><br/>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).<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133017">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)</span>
:item: technologies included:<br/>others should be at the end<br/>three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407072209">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported.<br/><br/>The list was meant to look like this:<br/><br/>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)<br/> <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133637">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)</span>
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144349">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)</span>
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....<span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321134535">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)</span>
::That bug will be fixed. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407121327">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)</span>
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144417">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)</span>
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear<br/>2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135639">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)</span>
::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).<br/>ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407140041">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)</span>
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144508">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)</span>
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145225">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)</span>
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314102256">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)</span>
::frameworks don't have outputs <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419144552">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:45 (CEST)</span>
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154952">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)</span>
::This meta ;)<br/>Assumption: If a Framework is based on another Framework it is either:<br/>1. Part of the Framework<br/>2. An independent Framework <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419105944">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:59 (CEST)</span>
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145357">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)</span>
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145600">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
==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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145633">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
: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"? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318155603">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::in my eyes: yes <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418221619">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:16 (CEST)</span>
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145706">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)</span>
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125859">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)</span>
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category<br/><span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093122">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)</span>
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093214">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)</span>
::What's about links to the Glossary?<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419111612">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 13:16 (CEST)</span>
:APPEARANCE<br/>the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design.<br/>To start:<br/>1) I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info<br/>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.<br/>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).<br/>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)<br/>5) I would like some colours! green check-mark; red cross<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304164941">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)</span>
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154709">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)</span>
:::After additional points it became the second: I closed it due to our discussion<br/>additional idea: the not used points could become grey<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419090409">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 11:04 (CEST)</span>
<span class="NiceDiscussions END"></span></div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-21T20:59:07Z

Eva Wiechers: <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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143534">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)</span>
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations<br/>Alternative suggestion: "Partners"<br/>[General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?]<br/>'''ToDo:''' Change "Institutions" to "Partners" in MF, FF and SF<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104032">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)</span>
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; <br/>@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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304074537">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)</span>
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)".<br/>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".<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318104325">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"?<br/>[General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose of the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104324">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125149">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)</span>
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. <br/>there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different<br/>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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304085516">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)</span>
::::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.<br/>There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose".<br/>Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318123916">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)</span>
:::::framework: delete primary output <br/>model: leave both in general information <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419132807">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:28 (CEST)</span>
:General Question:<br/>Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104452">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)</span>
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added.<br/><br/>'''required fields that I would change to "not required"''':<br/>acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software<br/>'''not required fields that I would change to "required"''':<br/>Open Source, Modelling software<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304091908">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)</span>
:::*"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<br/>*documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added.<br/>*"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option.<br/>*"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format.<br/>*"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future.<br/>*"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field.<br/>*"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*".<br/>*"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131004">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)</span>
::::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? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419124410">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 14:44 (CEST)</span>
:::::Decision:<br/>model file format: not mandatory<br/>modelling software: mandatory <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160421205818">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:58 (CEST)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092921">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)</span>
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131142">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)</span>
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418213803">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)</span>
::::I would prefer in the mathematical properties section.<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419093235">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:32 (CEST)</span>
:::::Ok, will be be moved. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160421205907">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:59 (CEST)</span>
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence?<br/>Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160310165618">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)</span>
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418214225">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)</span>
:::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? <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419093606">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:36 (CEST)</span>
::::Fact sheets passen so nicht ganz; vielleicht mit einigen Feldern die "other" benennen und dann Platz für weitere Einträge lassen kann das ermöglicht werden <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419134344">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:43 (CEST)</span>
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143902">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
: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'<br/>I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304075149">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)</span>
::We are working on the implementation. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318135105">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
:::still missing? Planned to implement? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418214750">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:47 (CEST)</span>
::::Gibt es issue?? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419134500">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:45 (CEST)</span>
: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<br/>CLOSED - that's implemented as Eva described it<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304083932">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)</span>
::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. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318142647">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)</span>
:::This is still missing - right? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418214645">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:46 (CEST)</span>
::::Is the separation between "Modeled energy sectors" and "Modeled demand sectors" right?<br/><br/>Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options?<br/>[Coverage; ; options; ] <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419102527">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:25 (CEST)</span>
:::::CLOSED <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419134743">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:47 (CEST)</span>
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point.<br/>I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet.<br/>Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304160402">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)</span>
::output data is not yet mentioned in the fact sheets? we should put that somewhere <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418220743">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:07 (CEST)</span>
:::Access to output data doesn't make sense for Models - only for scenarios <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419135006">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:50 (CEST)</span>
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143955">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
:What is the correct name?<br/>Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4))<br/>"Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model<br/>(Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...)<br/>[Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?]<br/>closed<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104628">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)</span>
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN).<br/>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. <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150437">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)</span>
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'?<br/>[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?]<br/>-> additional software<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104839">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)</span>
::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"<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080332">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)</span>
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080429">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)</span>
::CLOSED - additional software includes all; you can add as many lines as necessary <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419140150">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:01 (CEST)</span>
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)"<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104908">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)</span>
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302130227">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)</span>
:::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? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418215759">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:57 (CEST)</span>
::::Erklärungen ergänzen (ausschreiben) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419140742">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:07 (CEST)</span>
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144029">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)</span>
:closed<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105028">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)</span>
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"?<br/>Is it essential to list all options on the second level?<br/><br/>[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?]<br/>CLOSED<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105343">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)</span>
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug.<br/>How was it meant to look like?<br/>Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier)<br/>gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat)<br/>Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion<br/>renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP;<br/>What is the problem?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150611">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)</span>
: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''' <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092537">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)</span>
::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.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318132624">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)</span>
:::math properties.<br/>because it doesn't depend on the region. <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419141325">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:13 (CEST)</span>
:::CLOSE - see above (suggestion: methematical properties) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419141756">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:17 (CEST)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318143204">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)</span>
::suggestion: properties electrical grid <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419141938">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:19 (CEST)</span>
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144126">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302132721">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)</span>
::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? <br/>Francesco <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160307081242">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)</span>
:::CLOSED - Agreed with Francesco <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419142057">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:20 (CEST)</span>
: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. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154138">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318134427">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)</span>
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding <br/>- solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), <br/>- problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), <br/>- objectives (single, multi)<br/>...<br/><br/>Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: <br/>- complexity (O(x), ...), <br/>- approximation quality<br/>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? <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314133831">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)</span>
::could we put that in the info text of the mathematical model class? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419142643">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:26 (CEST)</span>
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144151">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what?<br/>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. ) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)</span>
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? <br/>Do you agree? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154102">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
:::Yes  - Evas suggestion! <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419143602">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)</span>
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)<br/> I suggest:<br/>e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304155632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options:<br/>* peer-reviewed,<br/>* outcomes cross checked with other models or data<br/>* other + text field<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154216">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)</span>
:::1. is the reference peer-revied?<br/>2. is the model validated?<br/>* cross-checked with other models<br/>* checked with measurements (measured data)<br/>3 other<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419103221">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:32 (CEST)</span>
::::does the validation refer to the model or the reference?<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419143644">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)</span>
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144241">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)</span>
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135123">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
::We will rearrange the set-up. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407131333">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)</span>
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale <br/>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<br/>Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407071514">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach.<br/><br/>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).<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133017">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)</span>
:item: technologies included:<br/>others should be at the end<br/>three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407072209">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported.<br/><br/>The list was meant to look like this:<br/><br/>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)<br/> <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133637">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)</span>
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144349">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)</span>
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....<span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321134535">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)</span>
::That bug will be fixed. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407121327">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)</span>
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144417">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)</span>
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear<br/>2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135639">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)</span>
::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).<br/>ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407140041">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)</span>
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144508">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)</span>
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145225">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)</span>
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314102256">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)</span>
::frameworks don't have outputs <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419144552">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:45 (CEST)</span>
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154952">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)</span>
::This meta ;)<br/>Assumption: If a Framework is based on another Framework it is either:<br/>1. Part of the Framework<br/>2. An independent Framework <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419105944">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:59 (CEST)</span>
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145357">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)</span>
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145600">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
==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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145633">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
: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"? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318155603">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::in my eyes: yes <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418221619">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:16 (CEST)</span>
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145706">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)</span>
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125859">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)</span>
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category<br/><span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093122">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)</span>
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093214">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)</span>
::What's about links to the Glossary?<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419111612">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 13:16 (CEST)</span>
:APPEARANCE<br/>the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design.<br/>To start:<br/>1) I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info<br/>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.<br/>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).<br/>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)<br/>5) I would like some colours! green check-mark; red cross<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304164941">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)</span>
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154709">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)</span>
:::After additional points it became the second: I closed it due to our discussion<br/>additional idea: the not used points could become grey<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419090409">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 11:04 (CEST)</span>
<span class="NiceDiscussions END"></span></div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-21T20:58:18Z

Eva Wiechers: <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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143534">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)</span>
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations<br/>Alternative suggestion: "Partners"<br/>[General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?]<br/>'''ToDo:''' Change "Institutions" to "Partners" in MF, FF and SF<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104032">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)</span>
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; <br/>@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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304074537">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)</span>
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)".<br/>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".<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318104325">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"?<br/>[General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose of the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104324">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125149">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)</span>
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. <br/>there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different<br/>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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304085516">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)</span>
::::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.<br/>There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose".<br/>Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318123916">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)</span>
:::::framework: delete primary output <br/>model: leave both in general information <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419132807">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:28 (CEST)</span>
:General Question:<br/>Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104452">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)</span>
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added.<br/><br/>'''required fields that I would change to "not required"''':<br/>acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software<br/>'''not required fields that I would change to "required"''':<br/>Open Source, Modelling software<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304091908">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)</span>
:::*"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<br/>*documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added.<br/>*"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option.<br/>*"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format.<br/>*"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future.<br/>*"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field.<br/>*"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*".<br/>*"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131004">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)</span>
::::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? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419124410">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 14:44 (CEST)</span>
:::::Decision:<br/>model file format: not mandatory<br/>modelling software: mandatory <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160421205818">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 21 April 2016, 22:58 (CEST)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092921">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)</span>
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131142">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)</span>
:::I prefer it in the general information but in coverage would be ok- can we close this with a decision on the 20th april?! <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418213803">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:38 (CEST)</span>
::::I would prefer in the mathematical properties section.<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419093235">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:32 (CEST)</span>
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence?<br/>Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160310165618">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)</span>
::I would like to but I don't know what the openmod community thinks about - shall I try to put the question in Stockholm? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418214225">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:42 (CEST)</span>
:::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? <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419093606">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 11:36 (CEST)</span>
::::Fact sheets passen so nicht ganz; vielleicht mit einigen Feldern die "other" benennen und dann Platz für weitere Einträge lassen kann das ermöglicht werden <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419134344">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:43 (CEST)</span>
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143902">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
: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'<br/>I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304075149">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)</span>
::We are working on the implementation. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318135105">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
:::still missing? Planned to implement? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418214750">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:47 (CEST)</span>
::::Gibt es issue?? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419134500">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:45 (CEST)</span>
: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<br/>CLOSED - that's implemented as Eva described it<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304083932">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)</span>
::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. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318142647">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)</span>
:::This is still missing - right? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418214645">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:46 (CEST)</span>
::::Is the separation between "Modeled energy sectors" and "Modeled demand sectors" right?<br/><br/>Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options?<br/>[Coverage; ; options; ] <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419102527">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:25 (CEST)</span>
:::::CLOSED <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419134743">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:47 (CEST)</span>
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point.<br/>I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet.<br/>Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304160402">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)</span>
::output data is not yet mentioned in the fact sheets? we should put that somewhere <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418220743">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:07 (CEST)</span>
:::Access to output data doesn't make sense for Models - only for scenarios <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419135006">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 15:50 (CEST)</span>
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143955">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
:What is the correct name?<br/>Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4))<br/>"Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model<br/>(Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...)<br/>[Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?]<br/>closed<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104628">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)</span>
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN).<br/>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. <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150437">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)</span>
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'?<br/>[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?]<br/>-> additional software<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104839">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)</span>
::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"<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080332">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)</span>
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080429">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)</span>
::CLOSED - additional software includes all; you can add as many lines as necessary <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419140150">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:01 (CEST)</span>
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)"<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104908">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)</span>
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302130227">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)</span>
:::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? <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418215759">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 18 April 2016, 23:57 (CEST)</span>
::::Erklärungen ergänzen (ausschreiben) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419140742">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:07 (CEST)</span>
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144029">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)</span>
:closed<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105028">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)</span>
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"?<br/>Is it essential to list all options on the second level?<br/><br/>[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?]<br/>CLOSED<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105343">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)</span>
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug.<br/>How was it meant to look like?<br/>Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier)<br/>gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat)<br/>Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion<br/>renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP;<br/>What is the problem?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150611">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)</span>
: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''' <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092537">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)</span>
::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.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318132624">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)</span>
:::math properties.<br/>because it doesn't depend on the region. <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419141325">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:13 (CEST)</span>
:::CLOSE - see above (suggestion: methematical properties) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419141756">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:17 (CEST)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318143204">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)</span>
::suggestion: properties electrical grid <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419141938">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:19 (CEST)</span>
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144126">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302132721">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)</span>
::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? <br/>Francesco <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160307081242">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)</span>
:::CLOSED - Agreed with Francesco <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419142057">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:20 (CEST)</span>
: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. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154138">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318134427">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)</span>
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding <br/>- solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), <br/>- problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), <br/>- objectives (single, multi)<br/>...<br/><br/>Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: <br/>- complexity (O(x), ...), <br/>- approximation quality<br/>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? <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314133831">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)</span>
::could we put that in the info text of the mathematical model class? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419142643">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:26 (CEST)</span>
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144151">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what?<br/>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. ) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)</span>
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? <br/>Do you agree? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154102">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
:::Yes  - Evas suggestion! <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419143602">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)</span>
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)<br/> I suggest:<br/>e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304155632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options:<br/>* peer-reviewed,<br/>* outcomes cross checked with other models or data<br/>* other + text field<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154216">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)</span>
:::1. is the reference peer-revied?<br/>2. is the model validated?<br/>* cross-checked with other models<br/>* checked with measurements (measured data)<br/>3 other<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419103221">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:32 (CEST)</span>
::::does the validation refer to the model or the reference?<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419143644">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:36 (CEST)</span>
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144241">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)</span>
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135123">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
::We will rearrange the set-up. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407131333">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)</span>
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale <br/>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<br/>Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407071514">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach.<br/><br/>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).<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133017">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)</span>
:item: technologies included:<br/>others should be at the end<br/>three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407072209">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported.<br/><br/>The list was meant to look like this:<br/><br/>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)<br/> <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133637">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)</span>
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144349">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)</span>
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....<span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321134535">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)</span>
::That bug will be fixed. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407121327">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)</span>
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144417">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)</span>
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear<br/>2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135639">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)</span>
::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).<br/>ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407140041">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)</span>
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144508">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)</span>
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145225">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)</span>
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314102256">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)</span>
::frameworks don't have outputs <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419144552">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 16:45 (CEST)</span>
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154952">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)</span>
::This meta ;)<br/>Assumption: If a Framework is based on another Framework it is either:<br/>1. Part of the Framework<br/>2. An independent Framework <span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419105944">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 12:59 (CEST)</span>
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145357">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)</span>
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145600">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
==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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145633">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
: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"? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318155603">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::in my eyes: yes <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160418221619">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 00:16 (CEST)</span>
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the category "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145706">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)</span>
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125859">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)</span>
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category<br/><span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093122">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)</span>
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093214">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)</span>
::What's about links to the Glossary?<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419111612">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 19 April 2016, 13:16 (CEST)</span>
:APPEARANCE<br/>the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design.<br/>To start:<br/>1) I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info<br/>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.<br/>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).<br/>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)<br/>5) I would like some colours! green check-mark; red cross<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304164941">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)</span>
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154709">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)</span>
:::After additional points it became the second: I closed it due to our discussion<br/>additional idea: the not used points could become grey<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419090409">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 19 April 2016, 11:04 (CEST)</span>
<span class="NiceDiscussions END"></span></div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-07T16:03:42Z

Eva Wiechers: <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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143534">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)</span>
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations<br/>Alternative suggestion: "Partners"<br/>[General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104032">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)</span>
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; <br/>@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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304074537">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)</span>
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)".<br/>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".<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318104325">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"?<br/>[General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104324">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125149">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)</span>
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. <br/>there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different<br/>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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304085516">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)</span>
::::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.<br/>There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose".<br/>Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318123916">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)</span>
:General Question:<br/>Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104452">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)</span>
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added.<br/><br/>'''required fields that I would change to "not required"''':<br/>acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software<br/>'''not required fields that I would change to "required"''':<br/>Open Source, Modelling software<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304091908">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)</span>
:::*"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<br/>*documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added.<br/>*"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option.<br/>*"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format.<br/>*"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future.<br/>*"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field.<br/>*"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*".<br/>*"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131004">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092921">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)</span>
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131142">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)</span>
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence?<br/>Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160310165618">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)</span>
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143902">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
: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'<br/>I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304075149">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)</span>
::We are working on the implementation. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318135105">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304083932">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)</span>
::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. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318142647">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)</span>
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point.<br/>I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet.<br/>Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304160402">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)</span>
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143955">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
:What is the correct name?<br/>Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4))<br/>"Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model<br/>(Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...)<br/>[Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104628">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)</span>
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN).<br/>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. <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150437">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)</span>
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'?<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104839">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)</span>
::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"<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080332">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)</span>
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080429">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)</span>
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)"<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104908">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)</span>
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302130227">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)</span>
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144029">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)</span>
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right?<br/><br/>Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options?<br/>[Coverage; ; options; ]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105028">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)</span>
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"?<br/>Is it essential to list all options on the second level?<br/><br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105343">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)</span>
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug.<br/>How was it meant to look like?<br/>Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier)<br/>gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat)<br/>Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion<br/>renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP;<br/>What is the problem?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150611">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)</span>
: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''' <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092537">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)</span>
::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.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318132624">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318143204">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)</span>
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144126">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302132721">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)</span>
::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? <br/>Francesco <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160307081242">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)</span>
: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. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154138">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318134427">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)</span>
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding <br/>- solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), <br/>- problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), <br/>- objectives (single, multi)<br/>...<br/><br/>Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: <br/>- complexity (O(x), ...), <br/>- approximation quality<br/>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? <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314133831">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)</span>
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144151">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what?<br/>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. ) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)</span>
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? <br/>Do you agree? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154102">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)<br/> I suggest:<br/>e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304155632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options:<br/>* peer-reviewed,<br/>* outcomes cross checked with other models or data<br/>* other + text field<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154216">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)</span>
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144241">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)</span>
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135123">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
::We will rearrange the set-up. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407131333">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)</span>
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale <br/>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<br/>Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407071514">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach.<br/><br/>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).<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133017">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)</span>
:item: technologies included:<br/>others should be at the end<br/>three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407072209">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported.<br/><br/>The list was meant to look like this:<br/><br/>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)<br/> <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133637">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)</span>
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144349">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)</span>
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....<span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321134535">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)</span>
::That bug will be fixed. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407121327">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)</span>
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144417">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)</span>
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear<br/>2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135639">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)</span>
::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).<br/>ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407140041">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)</span>
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144508">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)</span>
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145225">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)</span>
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314102256">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)</span>
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154952">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)</span>
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145357">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)</span>
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145600">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
==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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145633">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
: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"? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318155603">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145706">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)</span>
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125859">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)</span>
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093122">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)</span>
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093214">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)</span>
:APPEARANCE<br/>the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design.<br/>To start: <br/>* I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info<br/>* I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304164941">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)</span>
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154709">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)</span>
<span class="NiceDiscussions END"></span></div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-07T14:42:25Z

Eva Wiechers: <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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143534">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)</span>
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations<br/>Alternative suggestion: "Partners"<br/>[General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104032">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)</span>
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; <br/>@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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304074537">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)</span>
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)".<br/>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".<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318104325">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"?<br/>[General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104324">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125149">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)</span>
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. <br/>there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different<br/>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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304085516">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)</span>
::::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.<br/>There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose".<br/>Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318123916">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)</span>
:General Question:<br/>Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104452">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)</span>
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added.<br/><br/>'''required fields that I would change to "not required"''':<br/>acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software<br/>'''not required fields that I would change to "required"''':<br/>Open Source, Modelling software<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304091908">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)</span>
:::*"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<br/>*documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added.<br/>*"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option.<br/>*"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format.<br/>*"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future.<br/>*"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field.<br/>*"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*".<br/>*"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131004">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092921">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)</span>
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131142">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)</span>
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence?<br/>Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160310165618">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)</span>
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143902">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
: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'<br/>I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304075149">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)</span>
::We are working on the implementation. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318135105">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304083932">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)</span>
::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. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318142647">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)</span>
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point.<br/>I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet.<br/>Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304160402">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)</span>
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143955">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
:What is the correct name?<br/>Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4))<br/>"Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model<br/>(Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...)<br/>[Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104628">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)</span>
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN).<br/>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. <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150437">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)</span>
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'?<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104839">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)</span>
::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"<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080332">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)</span>
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080429">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)</span>
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)"<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104908">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)</span>
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302130227">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)</span>
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144029">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)</span>
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right?<br/><br/>Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options?<br/>[Coverage; ; options; ]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105028">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)</span>
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"?<br/>Is it essential to list all options on the second level?<br/><br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105343">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)</span>
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug.<br/>How was it meant to look like?<br/>Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier)<br/>gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat)<br/>Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion<br/>renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP;<br/>What is the problem?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150611">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)</span>
: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''' <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092537">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)</span>
::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.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318132624">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318143204">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)</span>
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144126">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302132721">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)</span>
::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? <br/>Francesco <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160307081242">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)</span>
: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. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154138">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318134427">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)</span>
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding <br/>- solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), <br/>- problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), <br/>- objectives (single, multi)<br/>...<br/><br/>Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: <br/>- complexity (O(x), ...), <br/>- approximation quality<br/>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? <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314133831">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)</span>
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144151">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what?<br/>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. ) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)</span>
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? <br/>Do you agree? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154102">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)<br/> I suggest:<br/>e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304155632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options:<br/>* peer-reviewed,<br/>* outcomes cross checked with other models or data<br/>* other + text field<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154216">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)</span>
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144241">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)</span>
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135123">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
::We will rearrange the set-up. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407131333">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)</span>
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale <br/>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<br/>Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407071514">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for your comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach.<br/><br/>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 (accessable via the question marks).<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133017">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)</span>
:item: technologies included:<br/>others should be at the end<br/>three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407072209">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported.<br/><br/>The list was meant to look like this:<br/><br/>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)<br/> <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133637">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)</span>
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144349">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)</span>
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....<span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321134535">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)</span>
::That bug will be fixed. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407121327">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)</span>
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144417">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)</span>
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear<br/>2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135639">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)</span>
::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).<br/>ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407140041">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)</span>
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144508">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)</span>
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145225">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)</span>
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314102256">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)</span>
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154952">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)</span>
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145357">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)</span>
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145600">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
==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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145633">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
: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"? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318155603">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145706">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)</span>
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125859">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)</span>
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093122">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)</span>
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093214">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)</span>
:APPEARANCE<br/>the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design.<br/>To start: <br/>* I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info<br/>* I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304164941">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)</span>
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154709">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)</span>
<span class="NiceDiscussions END"></span></div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-07T14:00:41Z

Eva Wiechers: <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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143534">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)</span>
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations<br/>Alternative suggestion: "Partners"<br/>[General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104032">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)</span>
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; <br/>@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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304074537">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)</span>
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)".<br/>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".<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318104325">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"?<br/>[General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104324">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125149">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)</span>
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. <br/>there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different<br/>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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304085516">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)</span>
::::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.<br/>There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose".<br/>Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318123916">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)</span>
:General Question:<br/>Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104452">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)</span>
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added.<br/><br/>'''required fields that I would change to "not required"''':<br/>acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software<br/>'''not required fields that I would change to "required"''':<br/>Open Source, Modelling software<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304091908">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)</span>
:::*"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<br/>*documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added.<br/>*"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option.<br/>*"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format.<br/>*"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future.<br/>*"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field.<br/>*"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*".<br/>*"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131004">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092921">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)</span>
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131142">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)</span>
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence?<br/>Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160310165618">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)</span>
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143902">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
: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'<br/>I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304075149">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)</span>
::We are working on the implementation. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318135105">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304083932">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)</span>
::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. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318142647">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)</span>
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point.<br/>I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet.<br/>Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304160402">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)</span>
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143955">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
:What is the correct name?<br/>Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4))<br/>"Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model<br/>(Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...)<br/>[Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104628">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)</span>
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN).<br/>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. <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150437">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)</span>
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'?<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104839">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)</span>
::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"<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080332">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)</span>
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080429">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)</span>
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)"<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104908">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)</span>
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302130227">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)</span>
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144029">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)</span>
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right?<br/><br/>Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options?<br/>[Coverage; ; options; ]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105028">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)</span>
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"?<br/>Is it essential to list all options on the second level?<br/><br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105343">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)</span>
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug.<br/>How was it meant to look like?<br/>Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier)<br/>gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat)<br/>Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion<br/>renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP;<br/>What is the problem?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150611">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)</span>
: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''' <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092537">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)</span>
::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.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318132624">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318143204">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)</span>
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144126">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302132721">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)</span>
::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? <br/>Francesco <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160307081242">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)</span>
: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. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154138">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318134427">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)</span>
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding <br/>- solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), <br/>- problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), <br/>- objectives (single, multi)<br/>...<br/><br/>Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: <br/>- complexity (O(x), ...), <br/>- approximation quality<br/>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? <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314133831">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)</span>
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144151">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what?<br/>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. ) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)</span>
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? <br/>Do you agree? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154102">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)<br/> I suggest:<br/>e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304155632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options:<br/>* peer-reviewed,<br/>* outcomes cross checked with other models or data<br/>* other + text field<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154216">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)</span>
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144241">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)</span>
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135123">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
::We will rearrange the set-up. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407131333">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)</span>
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale <br/>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<br/>Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407071514">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for you comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach.<br/> <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133017">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)</span>
:item: technologies included:<br/>others should be at the end<br/>three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407072209">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported.<br/><br/>The list was meant to look like this:<br/><br/>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)<br/> <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133637">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)</span>
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144349">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)</span>
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....<span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321134535">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)</span>
::That bug will be fixed. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407121327">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)</span>
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144417">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)</span>
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear<br/>2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135639">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)</span>
::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).<br/>ad 2. That is true. That issue was reported. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407140041">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 16:00 (CEST)</span>
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144508">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)</span>
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145225">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)</span>
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314102256">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)</span>
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154952">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)</span>
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145357">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)</span>
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145600">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
==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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145633">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
: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"? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318155603">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145706">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)</span>
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125859">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)</span>
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093122">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)</span>
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093214">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)</span>
:APPEARANCE<br/>the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design.<br/>To start: <br/>* I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info<br/>* I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304164941">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)</span>
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154709">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)</span>
<span class="NiceDiscussions END"></span></div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-07T13:36:37Z

Eva Wiechers: <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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143534">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)</span>
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations<br/>Alternative suggestion: "Partners"<br/>[General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104032">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)</span>
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; <br/>@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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304074537">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)</span>
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)".<br/>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".<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318104325">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"?<br/>[General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104324">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125149">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)</span>
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. <br/>there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different<br/>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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304085516">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)</span>
::::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.<br/>There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose".<br/>Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318123916">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)</span>
:General Question:<br/>Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104452">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)</span>
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added.<br/><br/>'''required fields that I would change to "not required"''':<br/>acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software<br/>'''not required fields that I would change to "required"''':<br/>Open Source, Modelling software<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304091908">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)</span>
:::*"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<br/>*documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added.<br/>*"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option.<br/>*"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format.<br/>*"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future.<br/>*"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field.<br/>*"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*".<br/>*"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131004">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092921">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)</span>
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131142">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)</span>
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence?<br/>Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160310165618">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)</span>
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143902">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
: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'<br/>I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304075149">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)</span>
::We are working on the implementation. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318135105">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304083932">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)</span>
::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. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318142647">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)</span>
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point.<br/>I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet.<br/>Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304160402">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)</span>
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143955">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
:What is the correct name?<br/>Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4))<br/>"Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model<br/>(Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...)<br/>[Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104628">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)</span>
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN).<br/>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. <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150437">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)</span>
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'?<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104839">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)</span>
::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"<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080332">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)</span>
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080429">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)</span>
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)"<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104908">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)</span>
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302130227">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)</span>
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144029">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)</span>
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right?<br/><br/>Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options?<br/>[Coverage; ; options; ]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105028">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)</span>
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"?<br/>Is it essential to list all options on the second level?<br/><br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105343">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)</span>
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug.<br/>How was it meant to look like?<br/>Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier)<br/>gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat)<br/>Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion<br/>renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP;<br/>What is the problem?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150611">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)</span>
: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''' <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092537">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)</span>
::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.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318132624">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318143204">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)</span>
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144126">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302132721">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)</span>
::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? <br/>Francesco <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160307081242">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)</span>
: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. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154138">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318134427">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)</span>
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding <br/>- solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), <br/>- problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), <br/>- objectives (single, multi)<br/>...<br/><br/>Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: <br/>- complexity (O(x), ...), <br/>- approximation quality<br/>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? <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314133831">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)</span>
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144151">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what?<br/>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. ) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)</span>
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? <br/>Do you agree? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154102">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)<br/> I suggest:<br/>e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304155632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options:<br/>* peer-reviewed,<br/>* outcomes cross checked with other models or data<br/>* other + text field<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154216">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)</span>
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144241">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)</span>
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135123">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
::We will rearrange the set-up. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407131333">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)</span>
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale <br/>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<br/>Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407071514">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for you comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach.<br/> <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133017">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)</span>
:item: technologies included:<br/>others should be at the end<br/>three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407072209">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for this comment. Some things went wrong here. The bug is reported.<br/><br/>The list was meant to look like this:<br/><br/>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)<br/> <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133637">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:36 (CEST)</span>
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144349">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)</span>
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....<span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321134535">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)</span>
::That bug will be fixed. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407121327">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)</span>
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144417">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)</span>
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear<br/>2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135639">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)</span>
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144508">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)</span>
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145225">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)</span>
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314102256">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)</span>
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154952">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)</span>
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145357">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)</span>
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145600">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
==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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145633">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
: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"? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318155603">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145706">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)</span>
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125859">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)</span>
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093122">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)</span>
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093214">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)</span>
:APPEARANCE<br/>the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design.<br/>To start: <br/>* I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info<br/>* I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304164941">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)</span>
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154709">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)</span>
<span class="NiceDiscussions END"></span></div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-07T13:30:17Z

Eva Wiechers: <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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143534">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)</span>
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations<br/>Alternative suggestion: "Partners"<br/>[General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104032">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)</span>
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; <br/>@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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304074537">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)</span>
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)".<br/>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".<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318104325">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"?<br/>[General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104324">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125149">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)</span>
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. <br/>there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different<br/>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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304085516">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)</span>
::::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.<br/>There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose".<br/>Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318123916">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)</span>
:General Question:<br/>Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104452">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)</span>
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added.<br/><br/>'''required fields that I would change to "not required"''':<br/>acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software<br/>'''not required fields that I would change to "required"''':<br/>Open Source, Modelling software<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304091908">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)</span>
:::*"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<br/>*documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added.<br/>*"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option.<br/>*"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format.<br/>*"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future.<br/>*"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field.<br/>*"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*".<br/>*"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131004">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092921">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)</span>
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131142">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)</span>
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence?<br/>Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160310165618">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)</span>
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143902">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
: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'<br/>I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304075149">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)</span>
::We are working on the implementation. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318135105">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304083932">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)</span>
::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. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318142647">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)</span>
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point.<br/>I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet.<br/>Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304160402">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)</span>
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143955">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
:What is the correct name?<br/>Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4))<br/>"Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model<br/>(Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...)<br/>[Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104628">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)</span>
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN).<br/>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. <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150437">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)</span>
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'?<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104839">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)</span>
::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"<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080332">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)</span>
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080429">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)</span>
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)"<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104908">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)</span>
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302130227">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)</span>
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144029">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)</span>
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right?<br/><br/>Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options?<br/>[Coverage; ; options; ]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105028">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)</span>
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"?<br/>Is it essential to list all options on the second level?<br/><br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105343">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)</span>
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug.<br/>How was it meant to look like?<br/>Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier)<br/>gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat)<br/>Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion<br/>renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP;<br/>What is the problem?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150611">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)</span>
: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''' <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092537">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)</span>
::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.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318132624">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318143204">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)</span>
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144126">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302132721">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)</span>
::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? <br/>Francesco <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160307081242">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)</span>
: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. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154138">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318134427">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)</span>
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding <br/>- solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), <br/>- problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), <br/>- objectives (single, multi)<br/>...<br/><br/>Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: <br/>- complexity (O(x), ...), <br/>- approximation quality<br/>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? <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314133831">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)</span>
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144151">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what?<br/>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. ) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)</span>
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? <br/>Do you agree? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154102">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)<br/> I suggest:<br/>e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304155632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options:<br/>* peer-reviewed,<br/>* outcomes cross checked with other models or data<br/>* other + text field<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154216">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)</span>
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144241">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)</span>
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135123">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
::We will rearrange the set-up. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407131333">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)</span>
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale <br/>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<br/>Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407071514">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)</span>
::Thank you for you comment. We will consider to enable the user to select more than one tool and accordingly its approach.<br/> <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407133017">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:30 (CEST)</span>
:item: technologies included:<br/>others should be at the end<br/>three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407072209">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)</span>
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144349">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)</span>
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....<span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321134535">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)</span>
::That bug will be fixed. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407121327">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)</span>
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144417">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)</span>
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear<br/>2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135639">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)</span>
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144508">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)</span>
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145225">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)</span>
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314102256">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)</span>
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154952">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)</span>
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145357">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)</span>
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145600">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
==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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145633">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
: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"? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318155603">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145706">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)</span>
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125859">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)</span>
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093122">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)</span>
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093214">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)</span>
:APPEARANCE<br/>the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design.<br/>To start: <br/>* I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info<br/>* I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304164941">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)</span>
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154709">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)</span>
<span class="NiceDiscussions END"></span></div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-07T13:13:33Z

Eva Wiechers: <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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143534">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 29 February 2016, 15:35 (CET)</span>
:"Institutions" does not include other Organisations<br/>Alternative suggestion: "Partners"<br/>[General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104032">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:40 (CET)</span>
::I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners"; <br/>@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 <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304074537">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 08:45 (CET)</span>
:::We will rename the "institution(s)" as "partner(s)".<br/>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".<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318104325">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
:What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"?<br/>[General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104324">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:43 (CET)</span>
::Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125149">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:51 (CET)</span>
:::primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there. <br/>there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different<br/>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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304085516">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:55 (CET)</span>
::::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.<br/>There will be no additional text field for implemented and planned extensions. If they are important, people will mention them in "primary purpose".<br/>Feel free to make alternative suggestions, when you dislike this solution.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318123916">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 13:39 (CET)</span>
:General Question:<br/>Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104452">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:44 (CET)</span>
::as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added.<br/><br/>'''required fields that I would change to "not required"''':<br/>acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software<br/>'''not required fields that I would change to "required"''':<br/>Open Source, Modelling software<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304091908">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:19 (CET)</span>
:::*"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<br/>*documentation quality" stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" will be added.<br/>*"Number of users / developers" stay also mandatory fields (drop-down menus). "---" is already an option.<br/>*"Model file format" stays a mandatory field. The option "other" exists can stay empty, if people really do not want to tell the format.<br/>*"Input / output file format" will not be mandatory in future.<br/>*"Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field.<br/>*"Open Source" is a checkbox, checkboxes never have "*".<br/>*"Modelling software" will not become mandatory.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131004">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:10 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092921">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:29 (CET)</span>
::There will be added a check box: "Multiregional model" in the coverage section. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318131142">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:11 (CET)</span>
:Do we want to invite transportation modellers to fill out model fact sheets for their models on the openmod online presence?<br/>Is the model fact sheet form suitable for transportation models?<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160310165618">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 10 March 2016, 17:56 (CET)</span>
==MF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143902">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
: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'<br/>I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add  a year and/or a month<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304075149">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 08:51 (CET)</span>
::We are working on the implementation. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318135105">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
: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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304083932">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:39 (CET)</span>
::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. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318142647">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:26 (CET)</span>
:Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point.<br/>I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet.<br/>Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304160402">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:04 (CET)</span>
==MF - Software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229143955">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:39 (CET)</span>
:What is the correct name?<br/>Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4))<br/>"Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model<br/>(Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...)<br/>[Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104628">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:46 (CET)</span>
::Modelling software is a better term here because one might use languages, that are no programming languages but still executeable (e.g. BPMN).<br/>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. <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150437">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 18 March 2016, 16:04 (CET)</span>
:Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'?<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104839">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:48 (CET)</span>
::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"<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080332">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:03 (CET)</span>
:::anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304080429">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 09:04 (CET)</span>
:Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)"<br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301104908">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:49 (CET)</span>
::For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration". <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302130227">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:02 (CET)</span>
==MF - Coverage==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144029">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:40 (CET)</span>
:Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right?<br/><br/>Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options?<br/>[Coverage; ; options; ]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105028">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:50 (CET)</span>
:Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"?<br/>Is it essential to list all options on the second level?<br/><br/>[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?]<span class="userid-227 comment-signature" timestamp="20160301105343">[[User:Ludwig Schneider|Ludwig Schneider]] 1 March 2016, 11:53 (CET)</span>
::In the fact sheets the headings (the first level) are missing. That is a bug.<br/>How was it meant to look like?<br/>Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier)<br/>gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat)<br/>Modeled technologies: components for generation or conversion<br/>renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP;<br/>What is the problem?<br/>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.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318150611">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:06 (CET)</span>
: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''' <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304092537">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:25 (CET)</span>
::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.<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318132624">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:26 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318143204">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 15:32 (CET)</span>
==MF - Mathematical properties==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144126">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
: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? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302132721">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 14:27 (CET)</span>
::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? <br/>Francesco <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160307081242">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 March 2016, 09:12 (CET)</span>
: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. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154138">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 4 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
::There should be options. We discuss them right below this comment in the next discussion point.<span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318134427">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 14:44 (CET)</span>
:There is a vast number of different types of optimisation problems. You can classify regarding <br/>- solution space (mixed integer, integer, real, ...), <br/>- problem class (linear, non-linear, quadratic), <br/>- objectives (single, multi)<br/>...<br/><br/>Same goes for solution/optimisation algorithms: <br/>- complexity (O(x), ...), <br/>- approximation quality<br/>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? <span class="userid-197 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314133831">[[User:Martin Glauer|Martin Glauer]] 14 March 2016, 14:38 (CET)</span>
==MF - References==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144151">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:41 (CET)</span>
:Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what?<br/>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. ) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304154632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:46 (CET)</span>
::We suggest renaming "Larger scale usage" as "model usage"; info text: Who uses the model? <br/>Do you agree? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154102">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:41 (CET)</span>
:what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)<br/> I suggest:<br/>e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model? <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304155632">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
::Instead of the text field, we suggest the following options:<br/>* peer-reviewed,<br/>* outcomes cross checked with other models or data<br/>* other + text field<br/><span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154216">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:42 (CET)</span>
==SF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144241">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:42 (CET)</span>
:The "name of the scenario" should be under the general category not below data <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135123">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:51 (CET)</span>
::We will rearrange the set-up. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407131333">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 7 April 2016, 15:13 (CEST)</span>
:item: Economic (behavioural) rationale <br/>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<br/>Erscheinungsbild: on the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407071514">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:15 (CEST)</span>
:item: technologies included:<br/>others should be at the end<br/>three times heat instead of electricity, gas heat (it should be added that the question is if the grids are included) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407072209">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 09:22 (CEST)</span>
==SF - Data==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144349">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:43 (CET)</span>
:The flag data is not there but is called openness....<span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321134535">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:45 (CET)</span>
::That bug will be fixed. <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160407121327">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 7 April 2016, 14:13 (CEST)</span>
==SF - assumptions==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144417">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:44 (CET)</span>
:1. The differenciation between data and assumptions is not clear<br/>2. the click boxes are not clearly related to the phrases (which belongs where?) <span class="userid-0 comment-signature" timestamp="20160321135639">[[Special:Contributions/192.168.42.1|192.168.42.1]] 21 March 2016, 14:56 (CET)</span>
==SF - results==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229144508">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:45 (CET)</span>
==FF - general information==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145225">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:52 (CET)</span>
:Do frameworks have outputs? Or is the point "Primary Outputs" pointless? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160314102256">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 14 March 2016, 11:22 (CET)</span>
:Are there frameworks that are based on frameworks? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154952">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:49 (CET)</span>
==FF - openness==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145357">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:53 (CET)</span>
==FF - software==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145600">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
==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 <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145633">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:56 (CET)</span>
: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"? <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318155603">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:56 (CET)</span>
==FF - references==
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160229145706">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 29 February 2016, 15:57 (CET)</span>
==MF - model integration==
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160302125859">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 2 March 2016, 13:58 (CET)</span>
==general discussion points==
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093122">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:31 (CET)</span>
:nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304093214">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 10:32 (CET)</span>
:APPEARANCE<br/>the appearance is still under construction but you can already mention what you would propose concerning the design.<br/>To start: <br/>* I like the inclusion of the GitHub-Info<br/>* I would prefer to take out the items where not necessary (example: name of the model, abbreviation, logo,...) <span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160304164941">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]] 4 March 2016, 17:49 (CET)</span>
::I do not get your last point. Sorry. <span class="userid-224 comment-signature" timestamp="20160318154709">[[User:Eva Wiechers|Eva Wiechers]] 18 March 2016, 16:47 (CET)</span>
<span class="NiceDiscussions END"></span></div>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-04T13:10:59Z

Eva Wiechers: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-04T13:07:48Z

Eva Wiechers: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-04T13:06:36Z

Eva Wiechers: <nice-discussions-summary>

Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios

2016-04-04T07:35:42Z

Eva Wiechers: <nice-discussions-summary>