Closed christian-rli closed 2 years ago
Hi Christian, I think this would be a significant enhancement.
For me, a new key named associated artefacts
after key 4 description
would be the right place.
Something that might look like this:
"associated artefacts": {
"scenario": "",
"model": "",
"framework": "",
}
@MGlauer @adelmemariani, what do you think of this suggestion?
I would highly approve of a way to link factsheets and the proposed solution seems reasonable to me. Criticism from the data backend is appreciated, though. This also leaves us facing the question, whether we use British English (artefact
) or American English (artifact
). Somehow i stumbled over the British version, but I am no fundamentalist.
Also, what do you think @Ludee @jh-RLI and @wingechr ?
It was discussed that a link between metadata and artefacts will be included in the factsheets for now and will not be part of the release v1.5.0. Hence, the discussion continues in https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/oeplatform/issues/821.
The standard lacks an option to connect a table to scenario, model or framework factsheets. We should discuss whether there should be additional (optional) fields to make this connection.
This issue came to my mind while comparing IIASA metadata with OEM. The former focuses more on scenarios and models, while OEM sets a focus on describing the table and outsources the information to framework, model and scenario factsheets. That's good, however a connection seems to be missing. The connection could come either from the factsheets or from the data tables. Let's discuss these options and other alternatives below.