Re: #ontology elementary flows #ontology
Thanks for this suggestion. This topic is also relevant for the
"Correspondence files" group.
In the end, it is not so important which list we choose initially, because any list will develop over time by having "same as" or class relations between different existing (and new) lists, e.g. ecoinvent, ILCD, USEPA, CICES and EXIOBASE, se also the description of the evolving classifications at https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/bonsai/wiki/Data%20Integration#classifications-and-correspondence-tables
For the hackathon, what is important is that we have included the classes from the lists (classifications) used by the actual data that we work with, so EXIOBASE and ENTSO as far as I understand.
Den 2019-03-05 kl. 12.58 skrev Chris Mutel:
I would suggest taking the US EPA flow list as the basis for the BONSAI flow list - they have put in quite a lot of work in basing their names and metadata on accepted standards and ontologies. https://github.com/USEPA/Federal-LCA-Commons-Elementary-Flow-List. The processing scripts aren't complete, but you can download the current output here: https://github.com/USEPA/Federal-LCA-Commons-Elementary-Flow-List/tree/master/fedelemflowlist/output Wes said that they should have a complete 1.0 release in a few months. On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 12:46, Bo Weidema <bo.weidema@...> wrote:This message is for those who signed up for the ontology sub-group (Current members: Bo, Elias, Massimo); if this isn't you, you can mute the #ontology hashtag. Based on the description by Chris and Matteo, I think the tasks for the ontology sub-group, to be distributed among us, is: 1) Upload task description for sub-group (do we need a project board?) 2) Coordinate tasks with sub-group on RDF (Agneta, Matteo) as it is not completely clear where the borderline between these two groups are 3) Decide on namespacing for the part of the ontology that is BONSAI-specific (i.e., which does not reside elsewhere): Suggestion to use purl.org - or bonsai.org - any other suggestions or arguments for one or the other? 3a) Create a "proper" ontology definition, based on the content of https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/bonsai/wiki/Data-Storage#specify-minimum-core-data-and-metadata-formats - in the form of a picture like the one in the "minimal ontology pattern". Matteo suggests to use the vocabs QB and/or QB4OLAP for this. This also implies the creation of initial classifications for activities and flow-objects (including biosphere flows) as per https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/bonsai/wiki/Data%20Integration#classifications-and-correspondence-tables - ensuring that we also include metadata for our testbench EXIOBASE dataset. 3b) Complement 3a) with an RDF schema, like in http://tcga.deri.ie/ or http://qweb.cs.aau.dk/qboairbase/ 3c) Place output of 3a) and 3 b) on new github repo. 3d) Link from wiki to 3c) and provide also here any arguments for choices made or alternatives considered. Bo