Talk:Fact sheets for models, frameworks and scenarios - Revision history

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

2016-04-22T11:21:01Z

<nice-discussions-summary>

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

2016-04-22T10:42:28Z

<nice-discussions-summary>

192.168.42.1: <nice-discussions-summary>

2016-04-22T10:40:26Z

<nice-discussions-summary>

Eva Wiechers: <nice-discussions-summary>

2016-04-21T21:02:25Z

<nice-discussions-summary>

Eva Wiechers: <nice-discussions-summary>

2016-04-21T20:59:07Z

<nice-discussions-summary>

Eva Wiechers: <nice-discussions-summary>

2016-04-21T20:58:18Z

<nice-discussions-summary>

Berit Müller: <nice-discussions-summary>

2016-04-19T14:55:45Z

<nice-discussions-summary>

Berit Müller: <nice-discussions-summary>

2016-04-19T14:54:16Z

<nice-discussions-summary>

Berit Müller: <nice-discussions-summary>

2016-04-19T14:51:37Z

<nice-discussions-summary>

Ludwig Schneider: <nice-discussions-summary>

2016-04-19T14:45:52Z

<nice-discussions-summary>

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 :::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>

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 :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>

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 :::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>

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 :::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&nbsp; 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>

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :::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>

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :::*"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>
 :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>

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 :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<span class="userid-71 comment-signature" timestamp="20160419090409">[[User:Berit Müller|Berit Müller]]  19 April 2016, 11:04 (CEST)</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>

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 :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/>* 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,...) => 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/>* 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/>* 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/>* 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>
+: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>
 :::I closed it due to our discussion <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>

@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 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>
 ::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>