Open timtroendle opened 5 months ago
This is up for discussions. @calliope-project/euro-calliope-devs happy to hear your opinions.
@timtroendle I believe the preferred naming in Calliope 0.7 is nodes. So perhaps we should use that?
I agree that a consistent naming will help. However, 'node' is a graph theory term and doesn't really fit in the context geospatial data processing of euro-calliope, in my view. I propose either regions or spatial_units, which were both terms we used consistently in our sprint week spatial resolution team.
As of Calliope 0.7 we do use nodes
inside Calliope itself, not locations
. But perhaps using locations
in the euro-calliope processing chain all the way up to the end, where the Calliope model is built (where nodes
will then be mandatory), helps clearly separate the data processing from the model building.
Distinguishing the nodes
of the calliope model from the regions in the data pipeline makes sense. Still, I'd favor regions
or spatial_units
. A location commonly refers to a point, but what is now called units
are not points, but polygons with an extension.
regions
has the problem of possibly being mixed up with the regional
resolution of the model. spatial_units
could work. There's also zones
and geometries
How about shapes
? It's shorter than geometries
/ spatial_units
, avoids confusion with other model functions, and is a bit clearer than zones
(imo).
The name
units
that is used heavily in the workflow stems from "administrative units". We may want to consider renaming them tolocations
.These are the reasons:
units
for "administrative units" isn't clear and many people may not even know what it means.locations
and we would be consistent.locations
in some places, leading to inconsistent code likelocations = rules.units
.