Re: draft and meeting

From: Franck Le Petit <Franck.LePetit-at-obspm.fr>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:03:24 +0200

        Dear Laurie,

	Fabrice and I had a look at the draft for simulation semantic.
	We think it is a very good draft and just have a few comments :

	1 - In part 4 : Physics of the code
		We think that in the three cases: Physical Objective, Physical  

Processes and Subject, le list of possible values have to be perfectly defined or a search in the registries will be unable to succeed because of synonyms. MNRAS keywords and some words used in VO- events should cover most of the possibilities.

                If you agree we should explicitely add this in the text as it is done for Physical Objective.

	2 - In part 5.1 : Algorithm
		As you say, here we will have a tough work to define the list  

beeing precise enough without getting lost in the details. Up to now, the list consider only keywords for hydrodynamical keywords, N-body, etc. I wonder if we could add to this list ETL, LVG, Monte-Carlo, Ali to cover algorithm used in radiative transfer codes. It should be easy to cover all the numerical methods for rad. transf. codes easily. This is a point we should talk about in Moscow.

	3 - In part 5-3 : Protocol
		This section is indeed usefull in the case of the search for a  

service to be used on grids. In this case we should provide not only informations about parallelisation but all the technical requirements to run the code. For exemple compilers, libraries (Blas, Lapack, NAG, ...).
                This makes me think to another problem. In the case of a code launched on a grid via a VO-service such as Astrogrid, do we plan at any level to describe the requirements in hardware: memory, processor... I think that may be useful at a point but maybe it is not required at this level of our work.

	4 - In part 6-3 : Algorithm Parameters
		I think we should not focus too much on this part yet since it is  

linked to the datamodel to describe results. This part is fine as it is presently.

	Best regards
	Franck & Fabrice.

    ------------------------------------

    Franck Le Petit
    LUTH
    Observatoire de Paris
    5 Place Jules Janssen
    92190 Meudon
    France
    Tel: (33) 1 45 07 75 66

---

Le 11 sept. 06 à 14:50, Laurie Shaw a écrit :

>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Attached is a first draft of the technical note that I have been
> writing
> for simulation Semantics. Based on the discussions at and after the
> Victoria meeting, and on early work on the Simulation data models,
> I break
> down the meta-data requirements to describe simulations into a set of
> categories. Each category itself must be labelled by a UCD, for
> which have
> made initial suggestions. The typical contents of a category varies
> between single characters or numbers, ascii text (or urls, names
> etc) and
> words from the standard vocabulary (which is still largely to be
> defined).
>
> I've attached the doc in both ms word and pdf formats. Would be
> great to
> have a brief discussion about this before the Moscow meeting -- I
> still
> have time to make lots of changes, if needed!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Laurie
> <Sim_UCD_Note.pdf>
> <Sim_UCD_Note.doc>
Received on 2006-09-13Z22:05:15