|
Re: #ontology elementary flows
#ontology
Bo Weidema
Dear Chris, Thanks for this suggestion. This topic is also relevant for the
"Correspondence files" group. In the end, it is not so important which list we choose initially, because any list will develop over time by having "same as" or class relations between different existing (and new) lists, e.g. ecoinvent, ILCD, USEPA, CICES and EXIOBASE, se also the description of the evolving classifications at https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/bonsai/wiki/Data%20Integration#classifications-and-correspondence-tables For the hackathon, what is important is that we have included the classes from the lists (classifications) used by the actual data that we work with, so EXIOBASE and ENTSO as far as I understand. Best regards Bo Den 2019-03-05 kl. 12.58 skrev Chris Mutel:
I would suggest taking the US EPA flow list as the basis for the BONSAI flow list - they have put in quite a lot of work in basing their names and metadata on accepted standards and ontologies. https://github.com/USEPA/Federal-LCA-Commons-Elementary-Flow-List. The processing scripts aren't complete, but you can download the current output here: https://github.com/USEPA/Federal-LCA-Commons-Elementary-Flow-List/tree/master/fedelemflowlist/output Wes said that they should have a complete 1.0 release in a few months. On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 12:46, Bo Weidema <bo.weidema@...> wrote:This message is for those who signed up for the ontology sub-group (Current members: Bo, Elias, Massimo); if this isn't you, you can mute the #ontology hashtag. Based on the description by Chris and Matteo, I think the tasks for the ontology sub-group, to be distributed among us, is: 1) Upload task description for sub-group (do we need a project board?) 2) Coordinate tasks with sub-group on RDF (Agneta, Matteo) as it is not completely clear where the borderline between these two groups are 3) Decide on namespacing for the part of the ontology that is BONSAI-specific (i.e., which does not reside elsewhere): Suggestion to use purl.org - or bonsai.org - any other suggestions or arguments for one or the other? 3a) Create a "proper" ontology definition, based on the content of https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/bonsai/wiki/Data-Storage#specify-minimum-core-data-and-metadata-formats - in the form of a picture like the one in the "minimal ontology pattern". Matteo suggests to use the vocabs QB and/or QB4OLAP for this. This also implies the creation of initial classifications for activities and flow-objects (including biosphere flows) as per https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/bonsai/wiki/Data%20Integration#classifications-and-correspondence-tables - ensuring that we also include metadata for our testbench EXIOBASE dataset. 3b) Complement 3a) with an RDF schema, like in http://tcga.deri.ie/ or http://qweb.cs.aau.dk/qboairbase/ 3c) Place output of 3a) and 3 b) on new github repo. 3d) Link from wiki to 3c) and provide also here any arguments for choices made or alternatives considered. Bo --
|
|
|
|
Re: Start of the #ontology sub-group
#ontology
Bo Weidema
Dear Agneta, Yes, I think a joint meeting Friday would be good to clarify the boundary between the tasks of the two groups. Bo Den 2019-03-05 kl. 13.12 skrev Agneta:
--
|
|
|
|
Re: #ontology elementary flows
#ontology
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 13:22, Bo Weidema <bo.weidema@...> wrote:
Thanks for this reminder that there is a lot of deep knowledge already in the wiki. However, in this specific case, I think we have an alternative to building our own thing, as the US EPA is a) open to collaboration, b) also trying to match to at least some of the described lists. The ideal would be to be able to use the linked repo without any modification by BONSAI tools.
############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|
|
|
Re: #ontology elementary flows
#ontology
Bo Weidema
Dear Chris, I would agree when we are talking about really general issues
such as time and geography, but for the truly core dimensions of
the Industrial Ecology framework (activities and flow-objects,
maybe also flow-properties and macro-economic scenarios), I think
it is important to be able to accommodate new classes (and
classifications) without the data provider having to go to a
"foreign" site. I have no problem with sharing and cooperating
such entries and correspondences with anyone, but that should
happen "behind the scene" from a data provider perspective. At the
current point in time, I would also try to limit the need for
cooperating with other entities (incl. US government ones) that
may delay the implementation. The whole idea of Linked Open Data
is that everyone can do their "own thing" while still being
accessible for everyone else. Best regards Bo Den 2019-03-05 kl. 14.38 skrev Chris
Mutel:
--
|
|
|
|
Getting started with #RDF (mute hashtag if this does not apply to you)
#rdf
Dear members of the #RDF subgroup We will kick start a meeting on the tasks/ deliverables for this group. The agenda for the meeting:
Time: Mar 8, 2019 10:00 AM Copenhagen Join Zoom Meeting @
|
|
|
|
Re: Weekly Q&A with Chris
Brandon Kuczenski
Hi all... Speaking as someone working remotely (and someone who is just now making his way through the email queue), I want to bring up a few points. Number one, I am 9 hours delayed from CEST, which means that y'all will be starting your day at midnight Pacific time and probably wrapping up around 9am. For me, I am a night owl so I will probably be able to overlap at the beginning and the very-end of your work days, but I'm afraid I cannot go full nocturnal for the week. So I can be present for the morning scrum and the evening wrap-up (hopefully both will be on Zoom) One thing this suggests is that my work can be to review the progress of the day and offer recommendations and critiques. (It would mean that I'm an ideal person to work on testing and CI, but unfortunately I do not feel like I have the skills to do that by myself) Anyway, I am already feeling a bit lost and overwhelmed so hopefully the next 3 weeks will bring some organizing and clarity. A question for the group: where should I do my planning for my portion of the project? I have been nominated by Chris to lead the "reproducibility" working group, and I accept. It is recommended to edit the repo README, but this seems like a bad place to put anything other than cursory details. Where are we doing the real planning? Perhaps the wiki that belongs to the github repo? Thanks, Brandon
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 6:41 AM <miguel.astudillo@...> wrote:
-- Brandon Kuczenski, Ph.D. Associate Researcher University of California at Santa Barbara Institute for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131 email: bkuczenski@...
|
|
|
|
Re: Weekly Q&A with Chris
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 22:39, Brandon Kuczenski <bkuczenski@...> wrote:
We also have a group of people in the Philippines, so you won't be the only one suffering!
You and the other group members will have to decide this collectively, but it seems like a new repository would be a natural choice. We encourage the use of Github project management tools like issues and the project board, to enhance transparency and allow others to more easily jump in and see a place they could quickly contribute.
|
|
|
|
Re: Request for help: Python library skeleton
Chris,
You mentionned CI scripts for conda packaging. Pypi is to forget absolutely ?
|
|
|
|
Re: #bentso Bentso model development plans
#bentso
Elias Sebastian Azzi
Account created, here https://transparency.entsoe.eu/homepageLogin
And API key requested by mail. This done; I am not sure to be able to contribute more than that for now.
|
|
|
|
Re: Start of the #ontology sub-group
#ontology
Elias Sebastian Azzi
3) Decide on namespacing for the part of the ontology that is BONSAI-specific (i.e., which does not reside elsewhere): Suggestion to use purl.org - or bonsai.org - any other suggestions or arguments for one or the other? I don't have any good pros and cons. Purl seems to be safest option in the long term? http://purl.org/linked-data/bonsai# is available 3a) Create a "proper" ontology definition, based on the content of https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/bonsai/wiki/Data-Storage#specify-minimum-core-data-and-metadata-formats - in the form of a picture like the one in the "minimal ontology pattern". Matteo suggests to use the vocabs QB and/or QB4OLAP for this. This also implies the creation of initial classifications for activities and flow-objects (including biosphere flows) as per https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/bonsai/wiki/Data%20Integration#classifications-and-correspondence-tables - ensuring that we also include metadata for our testbench EXIOBASE dataset.
|
|
|
|
Re: Start of the #ontology sub-group
#ontology
Bo Weidema
Den 2019-03-07 kl. 02.19 skrev Elias Sebastian Azzi:
Makes sense. I will create an account. Do we need to include in the ontology some of the thoughts you brought up in Weidema, B. P. et al. (2018) ‘On the boundary between economy and environment in life cycle assessment’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(9), pp. 1839–1846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1398-4 I think the definitions of "activities" and "flow-objects" are
broad enough to cover both economy and environment, so this rather
comes down to be a question of making the actual classification
within each of these two dimensions complete enough. Best regards Bo
|
|
|
|
Re: #softwaremethods Python library skeleton
#softwaremethods
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 21:41, tomas Navarrete <tomas.navarrete@list.lu> wrote:
No, but it is trivial to do. Ideally we wouldn't need conda (which is great for complicated dependencies, but overkill for simple stuff) too much. I already added twine to the basic requirements, for example. -- ############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|
|
|
BEFORE MONDAY: Dietary requirements for participants with #physical presence in Barcelona
#physical
Bo Weidema
Hi, all those of you who will be in Barcelona physically (#physical), If you have special dietary requirements, please indicating those
in a private mail to me (see the option below - no need to make
that public :-))
before Monday 11th, please. Best regards Bo (Your #physical host in Barcelona)
|
|
|
|
Updated agenda for hackathon, including timing of Zoom meetings
Bo Weidema
Hi all,
I have updated the agenda ( https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/hackathon-2019/blob/master/Agenda.md ) with timing, including the timing of zoom meetings (all in BCN time). Some one will probably have to revise the content, depending on the progress in the different preparation groups. Best regards Bo
|
|
|
|
Re: BEFORE MONDAY: Dietary requirements for participants with #physical presence in Barcelona
#physical
Could you confirm please if the food will be vegetarian by default? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Re: BEFORE MONDAY: Dietary requirements for participants with #physical presence in Barcelona
#physical
Stefano Merciai
Hi Bo, Unfortunately I am still gluten intolerant. Thank you! Best, Stefano On 07/03/2019 16:26, Bo Weidema wrote:
-- Best, S.
|
|
|
|
Re: BEFORE MONDAY: Dietary requirements for participants with #physical presence in Barcelona
#physical
Bo Weidema
Default is omnivourous. That is why I ask. Bo Den 2019-03-08 kl. 09.38 skrev Tom:
Could you confirm please if the food will be vegetarian by default? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Re: Start of the #ontology sub-group
#ontology
Sorry; I missed it. I had two concurrent meeting this morning.
|
|
|
|
Re: Start of the #ontology sub-group
#ontology
Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
Hi all,
after the call and the discussion I've drafted a possible schema with an example (please see [1]). It is based on the works of : A) A minimal ontology pattern for life cycle assessment data, by Janowicz et al. B) An Ontology For Specifying Spatiotemporal Scopes in Life Cycle Assessment, by Yan et al. The draft is currently incomplete and naturally all choices are up to discussion. Current feedback include: - Use OM ontology instead of QUDT - Use xsd:dateTime requires to add hh:mm to the date. - Explain the role of Literal in the figure - Keep track and limits as much as possible the introduction of new terms in the vocabulary - Limit as much as possible the number of ontologies we refer to - Use the provo Ontology [6] - "inInputOf" does not roll off the toungue - replacing schema:Place with geonames. The way Place is defined (https://schema.org/Place) is weird and not helpful for our use case - Consider the ontology for time: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/ - Consider https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/NOTE-eo-qb-20170928/ for raster data Here are my comments on a couple of points - Regarding the ontology of units I went for QUDT because it seems more standard (is W3C member), but I leave the final decision to the domain experts. Here is some relevant material: 1) the paper on OM [2] and the reviews of the paper [3] 2) the official websites [4,5] - It is correct, dateTime requires time, we can use xsd:date. Do we need/want time? - Literal here is the generic RDF concept of literal values, it has been added just to clarify a doubt that I noted during our last call. - Regarding PROV-O i have the impression that this is not appropriate. The ontology, as I understand it, is designed to describe 'provenance' in the sense of Data Lineage [7], so I think there would be a semantic mismatch. - I agree to use Geonames as URI for places, but as ontology I've investigate the definition, in Geoneames places are of type <http://www.geonames.org/ontology#Feature> which is defined as <http://www.geonames.org/ontology#Feature> a owl:Class ; rdfs:comment "A geographical feature"@en ; rdfs:subClassOf schema:Place, geo:SpatialThing ; owl:equivalentClass <http://www.mindswap.org/2003/owl/geo/geoFeatures20040307.owl#GeographicFeature>, <http://geovocab.org/spatial#Feature> . So it is rdfs:subClassOf schema:Place , this is why by adopting Schema Place we allow for the widest interoperability. Please let me know your thoughts/feebdacks on these. Note also that there are example use cases that are currently not well addressed by my draft, e.g., storage of goods. I'm also not sure about the class name "ReferenceFlow", the way I understood it is probably better described by "ReferenceOutput" ? Cheers, Matteo [1] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10Kd3zQEFPMEl7qB29xP65JGsNa9IKF8DvEg4SeiTKno/edit?usp=sharing [2] http://semantic-web-journal.org/sites/default/files/swj177_3.pdf [3] http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/ontology-units-measure-and-related-concepts [4] http://www.qudt.org/ [5] http://www.ontology-of-units-of-measure.org/ [6] https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-starting-point-terms [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_lineage
|
|
|
|
Re: Start of the #ontology sub-group
#ontology
Massimo Pizzol
Dear Matteo and all
Looks good to me but I am a bit puzzled about two things:
Hope these are not too stupid questions and thanks for the good work done so far.
BR
From: <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Matteo Lissandrini (AAU) via Groups.Io" <matteo@...>
Hi all,
|
|
|
