Gantner/SRCL feedback on naming convention

[steve-ransome]

SRCL_GI_PVPMC_naming_200430t093.pdf

Steve Ransome (SRCL) and Juergen Sutterlueti (Gantner Instruments) have been working with Gantner instruments for many years to help them develop a naming convention which they've been using, here are some constructive comments including problems we'd seen and had to overcome.

We look forward to contributing and answering any comments.

[toddkarin]

A few notes from our conversation today:

• What is scope? pv-terms is a list of variable names primarily for PV system modeling. As a secondary use, we want it to be extensible to pv operation data storage, but it is difficult to make a fully consistent method that works for everything. We can resolve this by including a translation column for Gantner data naming. Don't need to compete with orange button.
• Problem: Underscores are used to deliminate semantic variables and also modifiers. This can make parsing difficult, but there isn't a convenient way around this that works for python variable naming.
• Robert White mentioned that they use a naming convention with the most general to the left (e.g. voltage), and ID to the right.
• Uniformity: we can improve uniformity by making everything that is a voltage, current or power, start with that.
• Shortness: A few more abbreviations (e.g. vac instead of voltage_ac) might make the scheme a little more elegant.

[toddkarin]

It seems like more people vote for a mixed style including both taxonomy-style and human-readable-style variables.

[steve-ransome]

GI_SRCL_Naming_20_05_14_t17.pdf

This is the powerpoint I showed yesterday. I have several ideas to help overcome some of the problems Todd listed and will post them here next week.

Juergen Sutterlueti couldn't join us yesterday but hopes to be involved next time.

[steve-ransome]

Sorry I must have closed this by mistake.

[adriesse]

Nice to see I'm not the only person using FHI for diffuse horizontal irradiance!