Release/oedatamodel v1.0.0 #4
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Daniel Huppmann <dh@dergelbesalon.at>
| "path": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/"} }, | ||
| "_comment": | ||
| {"metadata": "Metadata documentation and explanation (https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/organisation/wiki/metadata)", | ||
| "dates": "Dates and time must follow the ISO8601 including time zone (YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss±hh)", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd suggest to also (explicitly) allow YYYY as valid timestamps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks for the remark. On the oep this concerns then the oemetadata, because there the metadata (and datapackage) string is developed. I can mention that there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you just mention it in the oemetadata but leave this comment as is, this might lead to conflicting instructions.
| "_comment": | ||
| {"metadata": "Metadata documentation and explanation (https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/organisation/wiki/metadata)", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "_comment": | |
| {"metadata": "Metadata documentation and explanation (https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/organisation/wiki/metadata)", | |
| "_comment": | |
| {"metadata": "Metadata documentation and explanation (https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/organisation/wiki/metadata)", | |
| "source": "Reference data source or model (modelling framework including version number) used to generate results", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have already introduced a source key in the oemetadata format. There, used datasets can be referenced. In a new oemetadata release we could introduce further subkeys for e.g. modeling-framework and mf_version to reference frameworks there. I will create an issue for this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The link to the source key would not have answered my question about "where do I put the model identifier?" even if I would have had the link.
The key question is how make it as easy to understand/find for an average/novice user... And from reviewing the PR, this seemed the best place to put a clarification.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, my comment was meant to be a solution suggestion. IMO currently model framework references are not directly supported in the oemetadata, without a deeper understanding of the oemetadata format. I agree with you that in order to avoid confusion, it is important that the fields are clearly defined/named and extra description must be offered to ensure better usability. I will mention this in the Issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add examples for both data model versions and rename them.
Both versions are readable, but the one is (more) normalized:
OEDataModel-datapackage
OEDataModel-datapackage-normalization
I'm not sure to which degree this conforms!?
Perhaps add a reference in the readme to the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization#Example_of_a_step_by_step_normalization
Initial oedatamodel release