Open s9105947 opened 2 years ago
@s9105947 I think your points are good ones. Could you form a PR with all this?
ABNF Grammar A implementation of the species type extension expects an ascii string and must accept at least expressions based on the rule species-type with the following definition:
A few details: we always mean ASCII at the moment for text/string, defined by the base standard.
I like the formal definition, yet I think the standard is currently easy to read since we go by examples.
If you find a compact way to add the grammar to each existing section as a sub-bullet ABNF grammar:
, the same way as we have a sub-bullet type
, scope
, allowed values
and examples
then this can be added as a PR :)
Dear Maintainers,
I am currently working on a PICMI implementation, which cites the OpenPMD "Convention for Specifying Particle Species". While reading the extension my internal "hm, maybe this might be {too permissive|not entirely clear}" went of too often for my personal comfort, and I want to share my thoughts.
I don't work with/on openPMD directly, and also tend to be a little over-pedantic: Please take my comments with a grain of salt. (Also, my background is in computer science, so I'm not too familiar with your typical physics simulation.)
This issue summarizes a group of issues regarding the species type definition into a (well-defined) grammar:
257 #258 #259 #260 #261
ABNF Grammar
rough sketch of a speciesType syntax definition using ABNF from the top of my head:
(
...
is an omitted finite list,ELEMENT
a one- or two-letter chemical symbol)A implementation of the species type extension expects an ascii string and must accept at least expressions based on the rule
species-type
with the following definition:Notes
I have no stake in this discussion (besides my general love for standards), the implementation I'm working on only accepts a subset of species anyways.
This entire discussion might be obsolete because the title of the extension clearly states that it is (purely) a convention. (I'd still argue that even if purely convention a clear definition should be used, so others -- like PICMI -- can use it as a standard; but that's debatable.)
Once the questions here/in the related issues are discussed I'd be willing to join the results into a PR for incorporation into the existing species extension document.