David Sagan

@ax3l I'm sorry I'm not following what you are proposing. What does `meshesPath` have to do with this? My understanding was that meshes were for internal fields and not external...

@ax3l Looking at this issue again I might be confusing the base standard with the ED-PIC extension. In any case, if I look at the example openPMD datasets I see...

@RemiLehe > I think that Axel's point is that you can always use: /data/400/fields/Efield_dc and /data/400/fields/Efield_ac (which would be compatible with the current standard) instead of /data/400/fields/dc-field/E and /data/400/fields/ac-field/E. If...

Another issue: positions with the Beam Physics extension can be phase space coordinates where the **z** coordinate is not actually a position. My thought is to make all position records...

@ax3l OK. The Beam Physics extension is likely to have a different organization so how about making these optional?

@ax3l No it is not outdated. In fact there is a conflict now with the BeamPhysics extension that needs to be resolved.

@ax3l > We currently do not impose that a particle name needs to describe the species type. I found this in the standard: > Each `particle species` shall be represented...

@ax3l: There seems to be two topics here. One is my proposal to simply clarify the standard (this is, simply change the wording in the standard) and the other is...

@s9105947 I think your points are good ones. Could you form a PR with all this?

>Can you please link example frameworks/codes/simulations for which the extension is intended? Can you a little bit explain/reference the method you are referring to so we can make it as...