On Monday 04 August 2008 13:58:51 Adam C Powell IV wrote: > On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 19:28 +0100, Chris Walker wrote: > > Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 11:02 +0100, Chris Walker wrote: > > > > And http://www.opennovation.org/ provides a much better > > > > categorisation of engineering type packages than I did. > > > > > > > > Categories there are: > > > > > > > > Partial Differential Equation (PDE) Solvers > > > > General Finite Element Analysis (FEA) > > > > Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) > > > > Electromagnetism and Optics > > > > Software for Phase Field simulations > > > > Boundary Element Method (BEM) > > > > > > > > Pre- and post-processing frameworks and tools > > > > > > > > > > > > Computer-Aided Design (CAD) > > > > > > > > Multi-body dynamics > > > > > > > > Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) > > > > (Ab initio and Molecular dynamics codes listed here) > > > > > > As the owner/maintainer of opennovation.org, I'm struggling with this > > > categorization, and welcome input. For example: > > > * Is libMesh FEA or CFD? It is a general FEA lib, but its > > > examples and development point toward CFD -- not to mention > > > that its authors are the CFD group at UT Austin. Saturne is clearly > > > CFD and Aster is clearly mechanics/heat (as are CacluliX and Impact), > > > so why should Aster, CalculiX and Impact be in general FEA? > > > > I've got as far as bending a beam using FEA, so take this with some > > pinches of salt. > > > > Would listing all the programs in one PDE solvers in one category, but > > having "ticks" for CFD, mechanics, etc solve the problem - these would > > correspond naturally to tags. > > > > Eg: > > > > CFD | Mechancics | Integrated pre/post | > > x | x | | Prog1 > > x | | x | Prog 2 > > Excellent idea. Makes for a big table though, once you start listing > all of the interesting capabilities. I have the beginnings of such a > beast (going through a transition) at: > http://www.opennovation.org/fea.html > > (Posting this here will motivate me to work on finishing it. :-) > > > > * Should libraries be treated differently from standalone codes? > > > Or is input file vs. short program which calls the library > > > functions merely a semantics issue? Aster calls its python > > > scripts "input files" where FiPy calls the exact same thing > > > "programs which call its functions". > > > * How about "standalone" FEA codes like Aster, vs. an integrated > > > pre- post- and solver like OpenFOAM? > > > > If you like the idea above, then have an Integrated pre/post solver > > "tick". > > > > You could then have a "separated pre/post processor". Knowing which > > pre/post processor works with which codes will also help. > > Indeed! > > > > These are some of the reasons I think keywords or tags are more > > > appropriate than "categories". But keywords/tags don't lend themselves > > > to well-organized websites... > > > > If there is an obvious set of tags, can you suggest them here. > > Okay, here's a start: > * PDE-solver > * finite-elements > * boundary-elements > * finite-differences > * integrated-mesher > * integrated-visualization > * fluid-dynamics > * solid-mechanics > * heat-mass-transfer > * radiation > * electromagnetics > * multi-domain > * multi-thread > * MPI > * PVM > * works-with [Salomé | gmsh | VTK ...] > > This list can grow arbitrarily if we let it.
How about using a standard library's (those with shelves and dead-tree books) classification system? This kind of problem should be solved by now, right? There should be an easy way to import an ISO-like list of categories/classes/tags. Anyone here knows a good librarian? regards FF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]