Den 2019-03-11 kl. 14.14 skrev Agneta:
1. I personally find the terms ‘Flow’ and ‘Flow
object’ interchangeable and hence confusing. Is there a
consensus on the use of ‘Flow object’ instead of ‘Flow’? I
would need some clarity on this.
The flow-object is the "thing" that can flow, e.g. "steel". The
flow is the instance of a flow-object flowing in or out of an
activity, e.g. "23 kg of steel output from steel mill X".
2. I don’t understand why Input and Output should
be separate subclasses of a flow? Instead I would think of
this as a flow property, in which the flow instances are input
and output. After all every flow is either an output or an
input. Similarly reference flow is also a flow property, not a
3. To follow up the question on adding an ‘Agent’ to
the existing schema. An ‘Agent’ is defined as ‘one who performs the activity’.
For example – Coal power plant (agent) generates electricity
(activity). This adds the advantage for defining stocks, as an
agent usually invests on stocks such as infrastructure or
machinery. So in my understanding we need to add Agent as
another class. Ofcourse the agent has properties like –
So I envision the simple schema to have 3
main classes- Agent (performs activities), Activity (has
flows) and Flows. Each of these classes have one of many
Some properties can also be classified. Especially important are
the balanceable properties (dry mass, water mass, monetary value,
4. Then again I
feel that our schema is pretty similar to the schema published
by (Janowicz et al.) , without ofcourse some objects such as
intermediate or elementary flows. The novelty of the new
schema is not entirely clear to me.
It does not have to be new! As long as it is precise :-) and does what we
want it to!