I feel like there are too many categories, which is likely to confuse people when they get here. Do we really need them all? And do we need subcategories (in “Workshop” and “Outreach”)?
Also, the distinction isn’t always clear. Doesn’t “open modelling” also cover “open data”? Should the former perhaps be renamed to “open code” – which would put in on the same organizational level as “open data”.
I like the term “open code” and suggested it be used recently in the openmod working paper to contrast with “open data”. But this was to replace the term “open-source” – which can rightfully be applied to data – and not the term “open modeling”.
When I started the two Wikipedia pages on “open energy system models” and “open energy system databases” I thought carefully about the terminology and came to the conclusion that “model” and “database” offered the best differentiation. Under this scheme, open modeling does not imply open data, while open data is a prerequisite for open modeling.
Regarding categories, Discourse claims to use categories rather than create a large hierarchy of forums and sub-forums. Would this not imply that categories should be used liberally. Or am I missing something?
The categories were set along the (clustered and reflected subjects of the) breakout groups. We discussed in the meeting that we want to have the follow up of the breakout groups in the forum. To have the same heading categories in the forum like for the breakout groups would in my eyes be helpful to have an overview.
break-out group categories in question were (as far as I remember (Idon’t find minutes about that):