new scheme according to the final SSB proposal from 3.4.2016

[ahashibon]

@khiltunen @kemattil @pooyan-dadvand @simphony/cimne @simphony/fraunhofer-iwm @simphony/enthought @SGGgarcia and Guillermo

Please review the new schema according to the SSB proposal. It is an initial version, more relations, elements, etc are needed.

[tuopuu]

@ahashibon, there seems to be some overlap between cuba.yml and material_relation_definitions.yml with simphony_metadata.yml. Some definitions are currently present in two of these files. Are we supposed to add to simphony_metadata.yml the contents of material_relation_definitions.yml, so that we can remove that specific file completely. Is this what we're aiming to do?

Why should we have a separate file cuds_item.yml for low level Cuds data objects? Shouldn't that be also merged with simphony_metadata.yml? Also, what are the final YAML-files we end up using? Just simphony-metadata.yml and cuba.yml?

Because there seems to be so many definitions that need to be added to simphony_metadata.yml, should we (the developers) work in parallel updating this branch before finally merging it to simphony-metadata master? Another option would be to merge this quickly, and then start working individually with separate branches that add new definitions.

[mehdisadeghi]

IMO one file for CUDS and one for CUBA are enough. We might end up splitting specification into multiple files in order to maintain them effectively however.

[tuopuu]

@mehdisadeghi, please take a look at mine and Adham's comment at #1. I think we can start with just two files for now, and if necessary, later split them into smaller files.

[mehdisadeghi]

@tuopuu I agree.

[ahashibon]

The goal would be to have one source for all metadata (simphony_metadata.yml), however right now the cuba.yml has very elemental metadata. It will take time to merge them, so my suggestion is also to leave it as is, and comment-out or better ignore those in the simphony_metadata.yml file that are also in cuba.yml for the mean time. The same for CUDS_item items.

The materials relations should be however moved to the new metadata file, this is the decision of the SSB already at the M24 meeting. We already moved most of them.

[ahashibon]

@tuopuu what final YAML-files we end up using? Just simphony-metadata.yml and cuba.yml?

This is another plausible solution, if we define the elementary cuba (in cuba.yml) using a differnet schema (the cuba are the elements that are simple, and are used across the board) while the simphony_metadata are the more complex data objects that are domain specific. This is a matter of ongoing research also in the wider level of the cluster.

[tuopuu]

Thanks @ahashibon for clarification. How do we continue to work on this, as it's related to #1? Do you mind if I take over this branch?

[ahashibon]

@kemattil @khiltunen @gromansg @pooyan-dadvand @tuopuu @mehdisadeghi can this be merged ?

[mehdisadeghi]

my suggestion is also to leave it as is, and comment-out or better ignore those in the simphony_metadata.yml

I would suggest to merge them into the new files (CUDS & CUBA) and delete the old ones afterwards, otherwise it will be confusing.

[tuopuu]

@ahashibon, just one minor comment on the file. I also think that we should pick a convention for the number of empty lines between definitions of the objects: currently there seems to be a variation between 1-3. I propose using always one empty line.

[tuopuu]

Some of the definitions seem to have a period at the end. I think we should also agree on a convention that period is only used for definitions that are clearly sentences, and leave the other "header-like" definitions without it.

[kemattil]

Please do not merge yet. I have some comments, put not yet time to list them. Will do it tomorrow or Friday at the latest ...

[ahashibon]

@tuopuu Thanks, good comments, please check now if the dots and spaces are ok.

[ahashibon]

few more minor formatting.

[ahashibon]

closed by mistake! sorry about that. Working through a very slow network.

[tuopuu]

@ahashibon, some minor typos and formatting errors, but apart from that, looks good to me.

[kitchoi]

Except for a few questions I have above, the rest looks good to me.

[kitchoi]

The new push looks good to me! Thanks @ahashibon!

[tuopuu]

Ok to merge?

[ahashibon]

will first create the initial Readme file with all the comments, and then it will be ok to merge.

[tuopuu]

@ahashibon, great! If you'll do a new push (for the ReadMe file) I can give it a quick review.

[ahashibon]

@tuopuu please check it! Thanks!

[tuopuu]

@ahashibon, I saw just a few small typos, please see the line comments above. Otherwise it's good.

[ahashibon]

@tuopuu @kitchoi you guys are doing a great job! thanks. is ok to merge now?

[kitchoi]

Looks good to me! :+1:

[tuopuu]

:+1: