Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Describe formally the pema output #38

Open
hariszaf opened this issue Apr 7, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Describe formally the pema output #38

hariszaf opened this issue Apr 7, 2022 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request FAIR improvement LW high priority priority for the LW developers

Comments

@hariszaf
Copy link
Owner

hariszaf commented Apr 7, 2022

This is about describing the PEMA outputs in a formal way, so that they are more machine-interoperable.

Similarly to the parameters.tsv file and its structured format (see issue #35 ) we need to do so with the pema output.

In the PEMA's output files file we had started working on it.

We shall go for it step-by-step.
@cpavloud feel free to contribute 😛

@hariszaf hariszaf added enhancement New feature or request provenance Metadata provenance labels Apr 7, 2022
@hariszaf
Copy link
Owner Author

@marc-portier Marc i just started working this file here.

Would you like to have a look from time to time and share your thoughts if i m doing well or something is going terribly wrong? 😅

@kmexter
Copy link
Collaborator

kmexter commented Jun 14, 2023

Marc and @kmexter will look at the current situation and make suggestions for improvements (probably not until july), which @hariszaf will do if they are not too complex (which is unlikely). This will then need to be included in the next release.

@kmexter kmexter added the LW high priority priority for the LW developers label Jun 14, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request FAIR improvement LW high priority priority for the LW developers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants