here we would like to discuss the idea of a new datapackage standard based on the specific example of frictionless datapackages. This one is related to the common-ontology. However, the goal is not to find common terminology or ontology but rather a logical model that allows for a adequate description of energy (system) data in the datapackage format.
Besides the Tabular-Datapackage Standard a Fiscal Datapackage Standard exists. I think the basic idea and also a part of the specification of the Fiscal Datapackage is a very good starting point. But as it is specifically designed for budget data it will most likely not be suitable to use it for energy modelling related data without âmisusingâ it.
What do you think? Does it make sense to develop a profile for an âenergy datapackageâ similar to the fiscal data package?
Hi @simnh. This is certainly an idea worth exploring. The physical/logical mapping that the fiscal data package (FDP) employs is one that could be adopted here â you indicate that in any case. My one concern is making such a package general enough to be applicable and specific enough to be useful. HTH, Robbie.
Hello @simnh ,
your ideas and your motivation are perfectly in line with the goals of the âSzenarienDBâ project and the current developments. Iâm more than happy to contribute to your draft.
Here are some links and comments in random order:
The OPSD project used the data package format and helped to spread âthe wordâ in the community
The current metadata version (v1.3) is compatible with the standard. So if you take out data (as csv) from the OEP and put the metadata (json-string) next to it you have (more or less) a data package. Thatâs the idea to be independent of the âformatâ (csv, postgresâŚ)
The metadata entries were discussed in various openmod break-out-groups and other events (the ones I could find in some minutes):
Wow, thatâs a bunch of scattered information⌠No doubt that it is too hard to find already discussed topics!
As @robbie.morrison already pointed out, the main work is the logical model.
This is where I also see a strong connection to the ontology. Because it will not be just an extended dictionary/glossary but a conceptual representation of the energy domain.
If we bring these ideas together, the resulting âenergy data packageâ would be of great value for the community.
Can you outline what we can Do during the âDo-a-thonâ to bring this forward?
Who is also interested from other projects or modelling teams?
What about the âmodel experiments/ comparisonâ people?
I would be interested in the do-a-thon as well. Since some energy projects are using tabular data packages already, some simple rules for the energy domain for a datapackage profile/resource could already be enough and be used directly (our team in Flensburg included). Meaning letâs try to follow KISS. Just to address Robbies concern.
Since you already mention the learning from climate sciences. Here is one of the main sources for the meta information used in the netcdf files: http://cfconventions.org/
Maybe itâs worth having a look at to gain some inspiration on how this may apply to energy system models.
The âcriteria groupâ has found that the design philosophy of the frictionless data specifications already matches our âgenericâ data-related criteria and could be a good/mandatory starter. Moreover, we agreed that there is already a lot of literature about scenario factsheets, etc. and we should gather all information in a new wiki page or add it to an existing one. This might help in the process of finding a common standard.
This standard has been used, amongst others, for the integrated-assessment scenario database compiled by IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), Working Group 3, see tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/AR5DB, and will also be used for the next IPCC reports.