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

Bo Weidema

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 subClass.


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 – location


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 properties.

Some properties can also be classified. Especially important are the balanceable properties (dry mass, water mass, monetary value, time, ...)

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!



Join to automatically receive all group messages.