I don't mean that what ever you replace [core] with has to be generic, I just mean that it's nothing specific (where [model] would mostly be mpas_). In this case, [core] can be chosen by the developers of that core. And you could potentially have multiple [core]'s if that makes sense for the development of that core.<div>
<br></div><div>I am not involved in the development of mpas-sea ice, but I personally would think that mpas_seaice would be better than mpas_cice, just because cice is it's own stand alone model. The analog for that would be if we chose to name the ocean core mpas_pop instead of mpas_ocn. But again it's all preference from the developers.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Doug<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Elizabeth Hunke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eclare@lanl.gov">eclare@lanl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Is there a reason that [core] needs to be generic? We could have more than one sea ice option, for instance, in which case it would make sense to use 'cice' for LANL's sea ice component.<div>
e</div></div></blockquote></div></div>