Re: Start of the #ontology sub-group #ontology


Massimo Pizzol
 

>>>I have started drafting a “PEP 0003 ontology” document t

I moved it here which seems a more appropriate location, sorry for late notice.

Massimo

 

 

From: <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Massimo Pizzol via Groups.Io" <massimo@...>
Reply-To: "hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io" <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io>
Date: Tuesday, 12 March 2019 at 13.48
To: "hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io" <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [hackathon2019] Start of the #ontology sub-group #RDFFramework #ontology

 

>>> 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: […]

 

I have started drafting a “PEP 0003 ontology” document to have an idea of how it should look like and it’s available here.

I mailed with Chris quickly and I understood that what we are supposed to do is:

1. first to clarify the points of discussion in my previous mail (+ others of course) and

2. only after we have reached a consensus (or non-consensus) update the document and include it to the bonsai repository (via pull request).

 

BR
Massimo

 

 

From: <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Massimo Pizzol via Groups.Io" <massimo@...>
Reply-To: "hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io" <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io>
Date: Tuesday, 12 March 2019 at 12.24
To: "hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io" <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [hackathon2019] Start of the #ontology sub-group #RDFFramework #ontology

 

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?
    • Other solutions?

 

BR
Massimo

Join hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.