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

Massimo Pizzol

>>>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?

  • “Minimalist” solution:  We could remove the class “product” and add the rdfs:label property to the class “flow”.  So everything is a flow.  Pro: total flexibility. Contra: how do we then distinguish the flows from which we will build a tech matrix A and those from which we will build a intervention matrix B (that will be associated with a characterisation factor)? Not sure.
  • “Classic” solution: we could add another class “Substance” that works as the current class “product” but is only for only for environmental exchanges and is therefore linked to the class “flow” via the property “b:ofsubstance”. Pro: similar to current LCA framework (A and B matrices). Contra: limits us if we want to make models that feedback-loop between technosphere and biosphere.


Not sure how subclasses work honeslty.


Massimo Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#84) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Mute #ontology
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [massimo@...]


Join to automatically receive all group messages.