Do we need a discretisation class

[bnlawrence]

The discretisation class is defined like this:

def discretisation():
    """ """
    return {
        'type': 'class',
        'base': 'science.sub_process',
        'is_abstract': False,
        'properties': []
    }`

It seems redundant, being just a way of renaming a sub_process ... is that really necessary, the property name and definition give enough context for that don't they?

[davidhassell]

I'm in favour of keeping it. Because, in no particular order

• It's not alone in being a renamed "something" with no extra properties (science.detail is a good example);
• A dicretisation is something that all numerical models have, just like conservation properties
• If we had defined a property to discretisation we wouldn't be worrying about this.
• It doesn't feel like a sub-process - I recall we sub-classed sub_process merely as a convienience to get the ('details','science.detail','0.N', 'Sets of properties for this process.') functionality.

Please correct me where I'm wrong.

[bnlawrence]

This is clearly a matter of taste and scale :-).

Taking your points one by one:

• It is alone apart from science.detail.
• We clearly need a discretisation property, but do we need a discretisation property type?
• Correct, but we don't. That could apply to any property ...
• Agreed. So is the problem with the name of the sub_process type?

But think for a moment about how the UML for this will look in terms of documentation: we will get
discretisation isA sub_process ... so how much benefit have we really got?

Wouldn't it be better to rename the sub_process type?

[davidhassell]

Ok. I agree that this is subjective :)

On renaming sub_process, I note that resolution and extent also are types to sub_process. I guess what you're hinting at is a name for a type which contains a "distinct chunk of the thing it's contained in". Currently, thing can be process or grid

[bnlawrence]

I agree ... "distinct chunk" ... of "thing" ... but what to call it :-)?

[bnlawrence]

Google defines component: a part or element of a larger whole ...
synonyms: part, piece, bit, constituent, element, ingredient; unit, module, item; section, portion;

We could reuse component but there is the potential for confusion with s/w components, but section or part might be possible? It's just a type, it's property name will give it meaning ...

[davidhassell]

I'd thought of partition, but in that vein, I probably prefer section. I do rather like component, but appreciate the possible conflict. How about component_part?