Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Review: CLEVER scenario #114

Open
2 of 13 tasks
f-innatech opened this issue Jul 9, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #115
Open
2 of 13 tasks

Review: CLEVER scenario #114

f-innatech opened this issue Jul 9, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #115
Assignees
Labels
review Data and Metadata review

Comments

@f-innatech
Copy link

Issue description

I'm submitting an open dataset with a corresponding OEMetadata string for review.
Please see review_process.md for technical detail.

The CLEVER report is the result of 4 years of collaborative work between European experts from
the academia and civil society of 20+ European countries, under the leadership of the négaWatt Association. The CLEVER scenario, which covers 30 countries (EU27 plus United-Kingdom, Norway and Switzerland2), is based on a unique
approach that combines sufficiency, efficiency and renewables and aims to reconcile long
term climate and sustainability imperatives with short-term energy security constraints. Although the scenario and its global results stand true for this set of 30 countries, many of the results presented in this report relate to the EU27 level,
which is specifically mentioned. While EU energy and climate scenarios are often built top-down with little national granularity,
CLEVER is a fully bottom-up aggregation of national trajectories. It proposes a transformation pathway for Europe, the EU and its Member States, which is feasible – and deeply enshrined into national contexts, with equity and European integration as core values

Workflow checklist

  1. GitHub
  • I have submitted this issue to have metadata and data review documented (Issue #NR)
  • Create a new review-branch and push OEMetadata to new branch (review/project_nameofdata#NR). If this step is too difficult, attach a file with the metadata as a comment in this issue and let the reviewer know.
  1. OEP
  • Upload data to the OEP in schema model_draft (see upload tutorial)
  1. Start a Review
  • Start a pull request (PR) from review-branch to master
  • Assign a reviewer and get in contact
  1. Reviewer section
  • A reviewer starts working on the issue
  • Review data license
  • A reviewer finished working on this issue (and awarded a badge)
  • Update metadata on table
  • Data moved to its final schema
  • [x ] Add OEP tags to table
  • Merge PR and delete review-branch
  • Document final links of metadata and data in issue description
  • Close issue

Metadata and data for review

Here are the links to my data and metadata. Naming follows the pattern:
nègaWatt - CLEVER Scenario - table title EU30 + EU27 countries, aggregated and individually (table_title_short)
Metadata: https://openenergyplatform.org/dataedit/view/model_draft?query=&tags=549
Data: https://openenergyplatform.org/dataedit/view/model_draft?query=&tags=549

Reviewed and published metadata and data

Final naming and location of the data and metadata after the review are as follows:
schema.tablename

@f-innatech f-innatech added the review Data and Metadata review label Jul 9, 2024
jh-RLI added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2024
@jh-RLI jh-RLI linked a pull request Aug 22, 2024 that will close this issue
@vismayajochem
Copy link

vismayajochem commented Aug 29, 2024

I reviewed the metadata in the beginning of the week. As far as I know it is know being checked by @yechenyan and @jh-RLI. The work process can be ssen in PR #115. If you have comments or questions feel free to also contact me, as @christian-rli suggested in the e-mail he wrote.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
review Data and Metadata review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants