Re: [h5md-user] Pre-averaged observables

[Felix Höfling]

Am 15.05.2013, 18:07 Uhr, schrieb Peter Colberg  
<address@hidden>:

> Hi Felix,
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:10:13PM +0200, Felix Höfling wrote:
> > A second scheme would extend the existing value/step/time triple to
> > include the error and the number:
> >
> > obs1
> >   +-- count
> >   \-- value
> >   \-- error
> >   \-- count/number/samples ???
> >   \-- step
> >   \-- time
> >
> > This scheme appears more natural to me and I would prefer it. In
> > addition, one may add "variance" and "standard_deviation".
>
> I use the above scheme, with the additional "error" and "count" datasets.

Fine :-)

May we add these optional fields for observable groups to the draft for  
0.1? I think of "error" (standard error of mean), "count" (number of  
samples), and "variance". Since the standard deviation is just  
sqrt(variance) it may be omitted.

> > There is,
> > however, a naming clash between the attribute or dataset "count" for
> > the number of particles and the number of accumulated
> > values/samples.
> >
> > Nicolas Höft noted on the halmd-devel mailing list that "count" for
> > the number of particles is not very descriptive, may we change it to
> > "size" or "number"?
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.simulation.halmd.devel/292
> >
> > The whole issue may be beyond the current release candidate. I
> > mainly would like to hear your opinion at an early stage.
>
> The attribute with the particle number is news to me…
>
> Yes, the choice of "count" is indeed confusing.
>
> We could introduce "particles" or similar instead?

Actually, "particle_count" or "particle_number" would be least ambiguous  
although it is a bit long. We may switch to "particles" simply.

Pierre, what do you think?

Regards,

Felix