itaps-parallel Comments on Tutorial Slides

[Lori A. Diachin]

Thanks Karen!   Great catches.  I made all the corrections (and found 
several more of those funky end ")" ).

Tim, do you have any corrections for me on the SIDL file examples?

Lori

At 10:47 AM 9/18/2008, Devine, Karen D wrote:

>Lori:
>
>The tutorial slides look quite good!  Thank you for your effort putting them
>together.
>
>I noticed a few details; I was looking at file
>ITAPS_SC08_Tutorial_Draft-09-16.pdf.
>
>-  In the figure on slide 7 (Unstructured Meshes on Parallel Computers), the
>labels on the figure are slightly garbled in the PDF version.  In
>particular, the "M" labels are hard to read.  Since we don't define them or
>use them later, perhaps we can just remove all of the "M" labels.  The "P"
>labels are OK; people will assume they are processes.
>
>-  On slide 64 (The ITAPS data model abstracts...), the animation covers the
>text in the PDF version, and it is covering key definitions.  Since we have
>to submit PDF, perhaps we should have one slide without the animation and
>one with it, so the definitions appear in the PDF.
>
>-  On slide 65 (The ITAPS data model has four...), there is one of those odd
>carriage return characters at the end of the "Entity" bullet.
>
>-  In the example on slide 115 (Ghost entities), we use ITAPS terminology in
>a natural but technically incorrect way.  Our example is 2D, so the
>ghost-entity dim and bridge-entity dim are correct.  But the text talks
>about regions being ghosted across faces.  In ITAPS terminology, we are
>really ghosting faces across edges.  But it sounds odd to call 2D finite
>elements "faces."  And a 3D example would look too complicated.  Probably
>the best solution is to describe the example as "one layer of ghost
>triangles for all boundary triangles sharing edges."
>
>Thanks again!
>Karen