search

IAMconsortium / common-definitions

Repository for definitions and mappings in model comparison projects
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
9 stars 18 forks source link

Add a first list of Tier 1 variables #57

Closed FlorianLeblancDr closed 2 months ago

FlorianLeblancDr commented 4 months ago

I open a new pull-request with only Tier 1 variables. I found it easier for @IAMconsortium/common-definitions-macro-economy to follow discussions and agree with PR with manageable size (working with small subset of variables and from the same tier).

Open to review for @IAMconsortium/common-definitions-macro-economy

@orichters thank for your work with #56 being usefull for the Tier 2 & 3 as well.

FlorianLeblancDr commented 4 months ago

Seems good to be merged @danielhuppmann

FlorianLeblancDr commented 3 months ago

Thank you Daniel for reviewing this.

Thank you @IAMconsortium/common-definitions-macro-economy for putting together this PR.

Two suggestions before merging, to ensure the long-term viability of the common-definitions variable template: this PR adds quite a few top-level variables (or categories). In order to keep the number of top-level variables small, how about the following:

1. make Employment and Unemployment sub-categories of Population (similar to Population|Urban vs. Population|Rural).

I am ok with this. Even though Employment + Unemployment does not equal total population, but this is a matter of appropriate definition. Olivier and Laurent, if you agree I will push the changes.

2. make Import and Export sub-categories of Trade and add `[Value]` for disambiguation, so have

   * Trade|Import [Value]
   * Trade|Export [Value]

   and then later add

   * Trade|Primary Energy|Biomass [Volume]
   * ..

This is a good idea. I am less sure about this one as I was going to suggest a GDP decomposition as tier 2 variables : Export and Import in values being component of GDP decomposition. But in this case this would be : GDP|"Production side" of something else|Export

I will think about it. Or we can apply your suggestion and revert it in an upcoming PR.

This is something we can discuss during a zoom meeting within the sub-group.

danielhuppmann commented 3 months ago

@FlorianLeblancDr, you mentioned that you will have a Zoom meeting in the sub-group - did you already have a chance to discuss this further?

FlorianLeblancDr commented 3 months ago

Thanks @danielhuppmann for the reminder. The zoom was a suggestion but we did not plan it.

I will commit a change for Employment and follow your suggestion Trade, which will help to close the PR faster.

Then leave a discussion on GDP composition for later.

danielhuppmann commented 3 months ago

Thanks @FlorianLeblancDr. Agree on your point about population and employment being not quite ideal. How about “Labour Market|Employment” as a new top-level category?

danielhuppmann commented 2 months ago

ping @FlorianLeblancDr - can we move this forward and merge soon?

FlorianLeblancDr commented 2 months ago

@danielhuppmann Yes sorry I got busy.

This seems good now :

danielhuppmann commented 2 months ago

Thank you!

I'm not sure whether this list is helpful...

There are too many different categories mixed together...

Can I again suggest to use Labour Force|Employed vs. Labour Force|Unemployed (plus breakdowns by education later) instead?

FlorianLeblancDr commented 2 months ago

Sure, I am kind of agnostic at this point, I was trying to follow your initial suggestion to move it in Population. I got your point : Population defines what people are (by age, sex, education) not what they do.

I find it useful to have the "Not Active" in the tag, in order to suggest, besides definitions, that the sum of Employment + Unemployment is not equal to total population.. even though "Labor Force|Not Active" is a little strange. "Pop. Activity" could include all.

Feel free to follow your intuition and merge.