Re: [h5md-user] [EXTERNAL] Re: static vs. dynamic H5MD elements

[Hart, David Blaine]

I'll admit that I've had to re-read those terms more than once to make sure I 
knew which was which, so I wouldn't mind seeing a change. But I also see 
Pierre's point about confusion with physical quantities. What if we changed 
just one of the terms, for example, from time-dependent to 'time-varying' or 
from time-independent to 'time-invariant'. Only changing part of one of the 
terms would make less impact on the specification history while still 
clarifying the meaning.

- David Hart, Sandia National Laboratories, Geochemistry Dept., address@hidden


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:h5md-
> address@hidden On Behalf Of Pierre de Buyl
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:15 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [h5md-user] static vs. dynamic H5MD elements
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:48:21AM +0200, Felix Höfling wrote:
> > I have a suggestion which, I believe, would improve reading of the
> > specification. It does not affect any existing or future H5MD file.
> >
> > Currently, we distinguish between "time-independent" and "time-
> dependent"
> > H5MD elements. The difference is hard to grasp in quick reading and
> > (even
> > worse) prone to typos. I suggest to replace
> >
> >     time-independent --> static
> >     time-dependent --> dynamic
> >
> > So we would speak of "static" and "dynamic" H5MD elements from now
> on.
> > Are there any drawbacks of such a change of wording?
> 
> I am not convinced of the advantages (except the lesser number of
> characters to
> type) but I see two inconvients:
> 1. work and blurring the history of the specification 2. possible confusion 
> with
> physical quantities (the static structure factor, etc).
> 
> P
>