[yt-dev] proper handling species fields

[Britton Smith]

I would rather not change the field names to denote the domain, but instead
only optionally make fields available with varying naming convention based
on loaded field plugins.  For example, you might have in
astrophysical_species:
("gas", "H_number_density")
("gas", "H_p1_number_density")

but in nuclear_physics_species:
("gas", "H1_number_density")
("gas", "H1_p1_number_density")
("gas", "H2_number_density")
("gas", "H2_p1_number_density")
to denote different isotopes.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:

> I like the idea of having context-specific field domains.  It seems to me
> that is why the field system was generalized to have two parts in the first
> place.  Perhaps we could move the nuclear fields to ('nuclear',
> 'Ytterbium_V') or something like that?  Either way, I'm in favor of
> expanding YTEP-0003.  Good suggestions everyone.
>
> Cameron
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Thanks for starting this discussion.  As you have stated, trying to
>> encompass all domains with a single nomenclature probably won't work.
>> Currently, the field system is set up to load all field plugins for every
>> dataset, but I think we should be able to move to having different
>> frontends declare which plugins they want and only load those.  With that
>> in place, for example, the current species field plugin can be renamed to
>> be astrophysics-specific and another one can be created that is nuclear
>> physics-specific.  If people are in favor of something like this, then I
>> would suggest that we try to expand YTEP-0003 to different domains and
>> establish the naming conventions there.
>>
>> Britton
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Chris Malone <chris.m.malone at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> At Britton's great suggestion, let's move the discussion of what to do
>>> with species fields from BitBucket comments to here.  For reference, see
>>> the discussion in the comments here [1].  Note that the current situation
>>> is outlined in YTEP-003, specifically the section on species names [2].
>>>
>>> The main issue is that yt supports a wide range of codes, which are
>>> applicable in various domains of science and sometimes the nomenclature
>>> clashes.  What is meant by 'species' is a prime example.  'Species' can
>>> mean atomic elements, ions, or nuclei (perhaps others?), and the definition
>>> of each of these should - if it is possible - be made explicit.
>>>
>>> Agreeing on the yt-internal nomenclature for this explicitness requires
>>> some discussion.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/pull-request/1240/bugfix-fixing-nuclei-density-fields/diff
>>> [2]
>>> http://ytep.readthedocs.org/en/latest/YTEPs/YTEP-0003.html#molecular-and-atomic-species-names
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cameron Hummels
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Steward Observatory
> University of Arizona
> http://chummels.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20141007/6b18212d/attachment.htm>