You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
eWatercycle II: When used for model coupling, BMI expects variable names of the corresponding models to be mapped to standard names. In practice, modelers are not using these standard names and refer to the original variable names. Is the mapping of variables desirable? If not, how could model coupling, i.e., selecting the right variables, be supported otherwise.
Instead of mapping variable names, we could annotate variables with metadata that specifies the context and meaning of the variable.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
MartineDeVos
changed the title
Mpping of variables to standardnames
Mapping of variables to standardnames
Nov 16, 2018
Hi Everyone,
I currently have DARPA funding to make significant extensions to the
Geoscience Standard Names (the current evolution and dramatically extended
version of the CSDMS Standard Names). One thing we are working on is the
semi-automatic generation of GSN-compliant names as needed to support new
models, etc. Another thing is tools to help match a variable name concept
to a concept that is already in the GSN collection. The GSN uses Semantic
Web best practices and technologies (e.g. RDF, SKOS, SPARQL, etc.) and is
available at geostandardnames.org. I'm hoping to have prototypes available
to share in the next few months. Feel free to email me with any questions.
Best regards,
Scott
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:28 AM Martine de Vos ***@***.***> wrote:
eWatercycle II: When used for model coupling, BMI expects variable names
of the corresponding models to be mapped to standard names. In practice,
modelers are not using these standard names and refer to the original
variable names. Is the mapping of variables desirable? If not, how could
model coupling, i.e., selecting the right variables, be supported otherwise.
Instead of mapping variable names, we could annotate variables with
metadata that specifies the context and meaning of the variable.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#21>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHU-L8tRQF1oeWxnNR_ZkTq_ZroBlzFVks5uvst_gaJpZM4YmWmH>
.
eWatercycle II: When used for model coupling, BMI expects variable names of the corresponding models to be mapped to standard names. In practice, modelers are not using these standard names and refer to the original variable names. Is the mapping of variables desirable? If not, how could model coupling, i.e., selecting the right variables, be supported otherwise.
Instead of mapping variable names, we could annotate variables with metadata that specifies the context and meaning of the variable.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: