Re: #ontology elementary flows #ontology

Bo Weidema

Dear Chris,

I would agree when we are talking about really general issues such as time and geography, but for the truly core dimensions of the Industrial Ecology framework (activities and flow-objects, maybe also flow-properties and macro-economic scenarios), I think it is important to be able to accommodate new classes (and classifications) without the data provider having to go to a "foreign" site. I have no problem with sharing and cooperating such entries and correspondences with anyone, but that should happen "behind the scene" from a data provider perspective. At the current point in time, I would also try to limit the need for cooperating with other entities (incl. US government ones) that may delay the implementation. The whole idea of Linked Open Data is that everyone can do their "own thing" while still being accessible for everyone else.

Best regards


Den 2019-03-05 kl. 14.38 skrev Chris Mutel:

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 13:22, Bo Weidema <bo.weidema@...> wrote:

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

Thanks for this reminder that there is a lot of deep knowledge already in the wiki.

However, in this specific case, I think we have an alternative to building our own thing, as the US EPA is a) open to collaboration, b) also trying to match to at least some of the described lists. The ideal would be to be able to use the linked repo without any modification by BONSAI tools.

Best regards


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.

The processing scripts aren't complete, but you can download the
current output here:

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 - or - any other suggestions or arguments for one or the other?

3a) Create a "proper" ontology definition, based on the content of - 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 - ensuring that we also include metadata for our testbench EXIOBASE dataset.

3b) Complement 3a) with an RDF schema, like in or

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.



Chris Mutel
Technology Assessment Group, LEA
Paul Scherrer Institut
5232 Villigen PSI
Telefon: +41 56 310 5787

Join to automatically receive all group messages.