Sorry if sounded smart or know-all I just wanted to explain to Matteo some of the issues in layman terms. I apologized for my mistake on the negative input straight away so I assume we can make peace now.
>>>The final proposal should include not just what you have found consensus on, but also the alternatives you have considered, and why they were not chosen
I guess by final proposal you are suggesting the use of BEP for this working group, do I understand right? I’ll try to make a summary of the discussion.
In this working group we are discussing the schema proposed by Matteo. Points of discussion:
The use and necessity of using the “input” and “output” subclasses has been discussed. Contra: seems redundant when there is already a property. Pro: useful for
filtering activities later on. Decision needed.
The use and necessity of a reference flow.
Not clear if it should be a class, subclass, or property. Pro/contra missing.
Not clear if it should always be output or could be input.
à Clarified: mathematically it can be both but the convention choice has implications (e.g. IO people like it output and positive). Problem: According to Matteo having ref flow
both input and output is problematic in the schema. Reason still not clear though.
Leave it out. Contra: information loss when importing from / exporting to LCA/IO format; without it we can’t determine causality. Pro: makes the model less complex.
Environmental exchanges and waste flows missing in the schema, how to include them:
I suggested that we could either 1) create a class “Substance” (or other meaningful name) similar to class “Product” or 2) remove class “Product” and just keep
class “Flow” that would be valid for both environmental and product exchanges.
Bo argued that “Wastes, by-products and emissions do not need to be distinguished.” How does this translate in practice in the schema, is not clear yet. Perhaps
as in the point 2. above?
