|
|
| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
| | :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> | | :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> |
| | :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> | | :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> |
| | + | :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== | | ==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> | | 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> |
Revision as of 16:04, 4 March 2016
MF - general information
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic
- "Institutions" does not include other Organisations
Alternative suggestion: "Partners"
[General Information; * ;Institution(s); text; ; Which institutions develop(ed) the model?]
- I prefer "partners", too; that would also match little bit with Francescos suggestion to include "Partners";
@Francesco: the employment of the model belongs more to the scenario fact sheet or can also be linked to through the categorie "references"; that's why we didn't included it here
- What should be considered in the "Primary purpose"?
[General Information; ; Primary purpose; text; ; What is the primary purpose the model?]
- Is the question regarding the primary purpose of the model unclear?
I would rather ask, whether we additionally need text fields asking for implemented and planned model extensions which go beyond the rimary purpose of the model.
- primary pupose and primary output is quite unclear; none of the testers who filled in their model wrote anything there.
there should be examples as the models and their tasks are very different
My personal opinion is that only primary purpose should be in the general information and the output should go to the category "model integration" which is in discussion to be added
- General Question:
Which other field should be 'required fields' (*)
- as far as I understand it the stars are standing for "required fields" that is not mentioned anywhere - that should be added.
required fields that I would change to "not required":
acronym, documentation quality, number of users, number of developers, model file format, Input/output data file format; Additional software
not required fields that I would change to "required":
Open Source, Modelling software
- 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
MF - openness
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic
- Francesco proposed to add the option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future'
I strongly support that! If this checkbox is clicked there should be a possibility to add a year and/or a month
- 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
- Francesco:asked why output data access was erased. As it is a critical point.
I guess because it is more part of the scenario fact sheet.
Or is the question where it is put from the model side and in which form?
MF - Software
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "Software" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic
- What is the correct name?
Should the version be included? (e.g. Python (3.4))
"Modelling software (Version)" or "Programming language" of the model
(Python, GAMS, C++, Matlab...)
[Software; * ; text; ; What modelling software and which version is used?]
- Sould there be a seperate field for 'Add-Ons', 'Add-Ins' or 'Packages'?
[software; ; packages/add_ins; text; ; Are there any add-ins for the model, separated from the source code? What are they about? Are they available? Where?]
- 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"
- anybody knows how to delete a comment field once saved (like this one)?
- Rename "GUI" to "Interfaces (GUI)"
[software; * ; Interface/GUI; checkbox/text; ; Is a graphical user interface available? / Are there any interfaces? Which? Are they licensed or available? If available, where from?]
- For APIs, please, see also the model fact sheet category "model integration".
MF - Coverage
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "coverage"" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic
- Is the separation between "Modeled enery sectors" and "Modeled demand sectros" right?
Are there other 'sectors' to include in the options?
[Coverage; ; options; ]
- Include ALL possible options to the "Modeled energy carrier" and "Modeled technologies"?
Is it essential to list all options on the second level?
[coverage; ; Modelled energy carrier (primary energy carrier); options; gas (natural gas, biogas, hydrogen); liquids (petrol, diesel, ethanol); solid (hard coal, lignite, uranium, biomass); other renewables (sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat); Which energy carrier are modelled?]
- 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
MF - Mathematical properties
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "mathematical properties" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic
- 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?
- 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.
MF - References
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "References" for the model fact sheets please use this discussion topic
- Francesco added the question: item 'larger scale usage' in category 'references': I don't get the point, larger than what?
We have to clarify that or take the point out (which I would prefer, I think it referred to the region the model was originally developed for. )
- what is meant by the item 'validation' exactly? maybe some examples in the column for the comments may help (added Francesco)
I suggest:
e.g. have the outcomes of the model been revied by peers? did you crosscheck the outcomes with an other model?
SF - general information
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic
SF - Data
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "data" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic
SF - assumptions
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "assumptions" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic
SF - results
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "results" for the scenario fact sheets please use this discussion topic
FF - general information
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "general information" for the framework fact sheets please use this discussion topic
FF - openness
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "openness" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic
FF - software
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "software" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic
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
FF - references
for any comments, hints and questions on the categorie "references" for the framework factsheets please use this discussion topic
General discussions
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the fact sheets in general
MF - model integration
for any comments, hints and questions regarding the category "model integration" for the model fact sheet
general discussion points
here is the space to put the topics that are not linked to a special sheet or category
- nearly every item should have explanatory questions and/or examples
