Data Model Renaming

[ccoffrin]

Revisit the names for everything in the data model and update to consistent and clean naming conventions.

@frederikgeth, this is not coming anytime soon, but we can bike shed about it in this thread.

[jd-lara]

I would be interested in reaching some convergence between what I want to achieve in PowerSystems and PowerModels' data structure and naming.

[ccoffrin]

By all means. All proposals are welcome in this thread.

[frederikgeth]

We may want to start with including energy, and time symbols here, define suffixes for all entities (e.g.g for generators), map these names to the parameters and variables and define the default associated SI units?

To which degree should we attempt to future-proof the data model (e.g. angle range of phase-shifting transformers or tap range of OLTC transformers)?

[ccoffrin]

My goal would be to come up with something like a style guide for parameter names, similar to what we did for variables in https://github.com/lanl-ansi/PowerModels.jl/issues/26, then update the data model to be consistent with those conventions.

I would not be overly concerned with future-proofing. I think just covering the all the parameters we have will provide fairly robust guidelines.

[jd-lara]

Making the convention consistent with PowerSystems/Simulations would be a great goal @claytonpbarrows

[ccoffrin]

@frederikgeth when we do this renaming, should we rename thermal_rating to power_rating? Seems core consistent with current_rating

[frederikgeth]

In favor of being explicit in terms of power and current for ratings instead of 'thermal'. (A thermal limit eventually should be the maximum acceptable conductor temperature.)