As we are upgrading and generalizing a forest sector model, we need to replace an horrible name for our current model, “FFSM”, standing for “French Forest Sector Model”, with somehting more cool.
Maybe it’s too forced, but you can use ASTERIX to get “Arboreal Sector Temporal Event-driven Regional Impact Xplorer”. I don’t know if your model is event-driven though
Thank you… sounds much better than the best I have found by myself until now, GenFSM for Generalised Forest Sector Model… you can always claim that it is some “event” that is driving a particular simulation…
Nous avons bien reçu votre demande et vous remercions vivement de l’intérêt que vous portez à notre personnage.
Nous vous félicitons pour vos développements mais nous sommes contraints de refuser votre demande de nommer un modèle mathématique “Astérix” , en raison notamment des droits moraux et patrimoniaux attachés à notre univers.
Toute exploitation non autorisée de nos marques et droits de propriété intellectuelle constituerait une contrefaçon.
The research area seems to use “Forest Sector Model”, so something in the lines of FSM in the name would probably be useful for marketing the tool to your research colleagues. If you intend it to make it relevant for other countries than France, perhaps it is good to avoid giving it the impression that it is “only valid for France”?
Or you could use a Latin name, such as “silva” – which I assume is the origin of “sylvaticus”?
Or you could use a concrete forest name, like Fontainebleu [is that where Inspector Clouseau was robbed in The Revenge of the Pink Panther?], or Sherwood, or something.
I find that naming things “Generalized XX”, “Extended XX” or “New XX” is a bad idea in general, for a number of reasons
If a later model is further generalized, are you going to call this “Generalized generalized XX”, or “Really super generalized XX”?
This kind of names does not at all describe in what way the model is generalized or extended.
“Generalized” and “Extended” are relative to some baseline, is this baseline still relevant in a few years, when perhaps even more models are available?
“New” quickly gets old.
Bad existing examples of this naming scheme are
Extended Kalman filter. There are tons of extensions available, how does this particular one extend? Why not call it “Linearizing Kalman filter”?
Frequency range naming scheme, HF, VHF, UHF. Each name is trying to be more extreme than the last, leading to ridiculous sounding names.
Document file names by people who do not use version control, such as “report_final.docx”, “report_final_final.docx”, “report_final_seriously_I_will_explode_if_this_one_is_not_apporved.docx”.
More reasonable naming schemes are absolute, e.g., by including the year of release, or an indication of the properties of the model (like Linearizing Kalman filter rather than EKF).
I did, there are a lot of stuff names ShareWood, but perhaps this is good in the sense that it can’t be trademarked as Asterix is… the only thing Sherwood forest is in UK (but it is also where I got married…) …
