Hi,

I think that using negative inputs to indicate an outputs is already a complication that may be not clear for many people. I think that Bonsai can be also used by the IO community, not just by LCA. IO practitioners do not like negatives.

Then, for example, in Exiobase (or in the WIOM of Nakamura and Kondo) the determining product (or principal production or reference product) of waste activities is a waste service, for example the service of recycling waste. This to say that perhaps we should agree on the framework that we are going to use. I think there is not unanimous consensus so better to spend some time for deciding the approach to adopt.

Stefano

Chris is right that one can use a negative (= input) reference flow. I just never use this approach and I forgot, my mistake.

I don’t see how we can skip the reference flow concept though if we are going to work with LCA data (deliverable 2 and 3).

Massimo

From: <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Chris Mutel via Groups.Io" <cmutel@...>
Reply-To: "hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io" <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io>
Date: Monday, 11 March 2019 at 22.32
To: "hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io" <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [hackathon2019] Start of the #ontology sub-group #RDFFramework #ontology

 

I think it would be a mistake to bake too many restrictions into the

general framework. There is a certain mental model that prevails in

LCA, but we don't want BONSAI to accept these restrictions at the

beginning unless they are absolutely necessary, and BONSAI is not just

for LCA (e.g. should also be useful for MFA). For now it might be

worth skipping the determining flow completely, as it doesn't seem

necessary for the hackathon.

 

Determining flows are not always outputs, treatment of waste by

landfill has waste as a determining flow input.

 

 

 

-- 
Best,
S.