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

Bo Weidema

Den 2019-03-11 kl. 14.09 skrev Massimo Pizzol:

  1. Why do we separate between two subclass “input” and “output” when we have already the two relations: “b:isInputOf” and “b:IsOutputof”? I mean, “inputs” are always “inputs of” something so… In other words:  why don’t we link directly the “activity” and “flow” classes instead of linking them only indirectly via the “input/output” subclasses?

Good point. No need for separate subclasses, as also Agneta pointed out. It is just an input relation or an output relation of a flow-object in a specific activity context.

  1. How do environmental exchanges fit this scheme.? For example how is the emission of carbon dioxide as output from the steel production represented in this framework? Would we need a different class called, say, “environmental” that is linked to the “flow” class (in the same was the current “product” class is) or would environmental exchanges just be a different instance of the “product” class?

Environmental exchanges are also just flows (or flow-objects). CO2 can both be an emission to the environment and a (by-)product, but as a chemical it is the same. For this reason, it may be reasonable to distinguish between "carbon dioxide (product)" and "carbon dioxide (emission)". Whether that is best done by creating "product" and "emission" as sub-classes of flow-objects or just as properties, I am not completely sure. The general idea is not to be too specific if it can be avoided which would be an argument for the latter (property) option, but on the other hand the sub-calss option makes in clear that the "carbon dioxide" is placed in one or the other class. Any views on this?


Join to automatically receive all group messages.