|
Massimo Pizzol
Everything looks fine to me, I just miss some questions about impacts (and I realize that I am not sure if characterisation factors are included in our schema as properties or how …?). Examples:
(MP_Q1) What is the direct output flow of flow-object F from activity A measured by flow-property P in location L in the time period T under macro-economic scenario S? (example: What is the direct output of carbon dioxide from steel production measured in carbon dioxide equivalents in Germany in year 2020 under the Business-as-Usual scenario?) à Is this just another instance of type BW_Q1?
(MP_Q2) What is the additional output flow of flow-object F from activity A measured by flow-property P in location M in the time period T resulting from a demand of flow-object G in location M in the time period U, all under macro-economic scenario S? (example: What is the additional global warming potential from steel production measured in carbon dioxide equivalents in year 2020 resulting from a demand of 100 square meter of office building in Spain in year 2019 under the Business-as-Usual scenario?) à Is this just another instance of type BW_Q6?
BR
From: <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Bo Weidema via Groups.Io" <bo.weidema@...>
I would like to attack this a bit more systematically:
Querying the core database alone (noting that the core observations/datapoints are “flows”): (BW_Q1) What is the direct input flow of flow-object F to activity A measured by flow-property P in location L in the time period T under macro-economic scenario S? (example: What is the direct input of coal to steel production measured by dry mass in Germany in year 2020 under the Business-as-Usual scenario?) (BW_Q2) What is the direct output flow of flow-object F from activity A measured by flow-property P in location L in the time period T under macro-economic scenario S? (example: What is the direct output of steel from steel production measured by EUR2011 nominal value in Germany in year 2020 under the Business-as-Usual scenario?) (BW_Q3) What is the determining flow of activity A in location L in the time period T under macro-economic scenario S? (example: What is the determining flow of soybean mills in Brazil in year 2020 under the Business-as-Usual scenario?) (BW_Q4) What is the difference between input flows and output flows of flow-property P for activity A in location L in the time period T under macro-economic scenario S? (example: What is the difference between input flows and output flows of dry mass for all activities globally in year 2020 under the Business-as-Usual scenario?)
Querying the core database together with a system model algorithm (for creating product footprints): (BW_Q5) What is the additional input flow of flow-object F to activity A measured by flow-property P in location M in the time period T resulting from a demand of flow-object G in location M in the time period U, all under macro-economic scenario S? (example: What is the additional input of surface water to steel production measured by wet mass in Germany in year 2020 resulting from a demand of 100 square meter of office building in Spain in year 2019 under the Business-as-Usual scenario?) (BW_Q6) What is the additional output flow of flow-object F from activity A measured by flow-property P in location M in the time period T resulting from a demand of flow-object G in location M in the time period U, all under macro-economic scenario S? (example: What is the additional radiative forcing from the atmospheric energy transfer measured by power per area globally in year 2020 resulting from a demand of 100 square meter of office building in Spain in year 2019 under the Business-as-Usual scenario?)
I will break the rule of not commenting, by pointing out that:
(ML_Q1) is an instance of (BW_Q3)
(AG_Q1) can be obtained as an instance of either of (BW_Q1), (BW_Q2), (BW_Q5) and (BW_Q6) (AG_Q2) is similar to (BW_Q4)
|
|
|
|
Bo Weidema
Den 2019-03-13 kl. 16.28 skrev Massimo Pizzol:
What flows out of the steel production is carbon dioxide. 1 kg of
carbon dioxide = 1 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents, so I assume
what you are thinking of is rather if the output was of, say,
methane, which can also be expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents
under a specific macro-economic scenario, and depending on where
in the impact pathway you define the equivalence. So the most
consistent way of dealing with this is to follow the methane
through the following ecosystem activities "atmospheric energy
balance" and "temperature increase" as a result of the additional
input of methane. These processes will have outputs expressed in
radiative forcing and temperature change, which can of course be
compared to the radiative forcing and temperature change from a kg
of carbon dioxide, so that you obtain the impacts of methane in
carbon dioxide equivalents at the point in the impact pathway that
you are interested in.
The global warming potential (given a specified time horizon) is a weighting factor applied to each greenhouse gas. This is most easily included in a separate weighting step. This could be done by adding the weighting as an activity, but I would suggest to use the E matrix suggested in http://lca-net.com/p/2865 for this purpose. Best regards Bo
|
|
|
|
#correspondencetables - what needs to be done?
#correspondencetables
Miguel Fernández Astudillo
Dear all
I think the correspondence tables have not been discussed. What would need to be done to meet the objectives of the hackathon? best, Miguel (F. Astudillo)
|
|
|
|
Massimo Pizzol
Thanks.
Am I right that your comment is similar what you have replied already here on GDP? My impression is that like in the GDP discussion you are proposing a breakdown of each modelling step by creating an activity object for each model variable (e.g. along an impact chain). Since, however, there might be a databases/ file somewhere on the web where a list of characterisation factors (like there are GDP data per country online), this dataset on the web could be linked to our flows directly and used for e.g. for validation the results obtained from the query mentioned above, or even for calculations without using the model breakdown.
However, I don’t understand why in the first example you want to “follow the methane through some activities” and in the second one you want to use directly “weighting factors”. Seems inconsistent to me.
BR Massimo
From: <hackathon2019@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Bo Weidema via Groups.Io" <bo.weidema@...>
Den 2019-03-13 kl. 16.28 skrev Massimo Pizzol:
What flows out of the steel production is carbon dioxide. 1 kg of carbon dioxide = 1 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents, so I assume what you are thinking of is rather if the output was of, say, methane, which can also be expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents under a specific macro-economic scenario, and depending on where in the impact pathway you define the equivalence. So the most consistent way of dealing with this is to follow the methane through the following ecosystem activities "atmospheric energy balance" and "temperature increase" as a result of the additional input of methane. These processes will have outputs expressed in radiative forcing and temperature change, which can of course be compared to the radiative forcing and temperature change from a kg of carbon dioxide, so that you obtain the impacts of methane in carbon dioxide equivalents at the point in the impact pathway that you are interested in.
The global warming potential (given a specified time horizon) is a weighting factor applied to each greenhouse gas. This is most easily included in a separate weighting step. This could be done by adding the weighting as an activity, but I would suggest to use the E matrix suggested in http://lca-net.com/p/2865 for this purpose. Best regards Bo
|
|
|
|
Bo Weidema
Den 2019-03-13 kl. 17.07 skrev Massimo Pizzol:
Well, you can aggregate any number of activities (and thus also
steps in an impact pathway) and thus obtain the desired
characterisation factors (for non-LCA people: A characterisation
factor is an output flow from a characterisation activity given in
relation to the input of the determining flow to be
characterised). And as such you can also store such aggregated
activity data obtained as "raw" data, e.g. for comparison to the
aggregated result of a specific more detailed modelling.
It stems from the fact that you asked about two different things: 1) carbon dioxide equivalents, which is a generic concept, 2) Global Warming Potentials, which are specific weighting factors for GreenHouseGases under a specific normative paradigm. Best regards Bo
--
|
|
|
|
Massimo Pizzol
>>> you asked about two different things: 1) carbon dioxide equivalents, which is a generic concept, 2) Global Warming Potentials, which are specific weighting factors for GreenHouseGases under a specific normative paradigm. Thanks again. All clear. (and now returning back to the original thread…) What I was asking for the is the same type of information: a value measured in CO2-equivalents. But in the first case it was this was “just” the value associated with a a specific flow (value of the carbon dioxide (or methane) emission expresses in the CO2-equivalents unit.), whereas in the second case was the value obtained from the calculation over the product system (sum of all the GHG emissions of the product system converted into the CO2-equivalents unit). I didn’t know how to formulate it correctly according to the format Matteo asked. But these would be typical LCA queries IMO.
Massimo ,_._,_ Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#125) |
Reply To Group |
Reply To Sender |
Mute This Topic | New Topic _._,_._,_
|
|
|
|
Re: #correspondencetables - what needs to be done?
#correspondencetables
Brandon Kuczenski
I think the correspondence tables should just be converted to RDF for entry into the database. In my understanding, there is nothing a correspondence table does that an RDF database does not also do.
The necessary tasks would be to identify the appropriate predicates to describe the relationships. This crosses into the #ontology discussion, and is outside my expertise anyway, but the #skos ontology seems to have some of the right terms in its mappingRelations superclass For instance: skos:exactMatch and skos:closeMatch seem like good candidates. Again I am outside my direct experience, but in the example table here: https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/bonsai/blob/da0f7d82161b8a296a0b571d3c2fa2f1a137b8ca/FAO_vs_EXIOBASE_prod_classification_correspondence.xlsx I would do something like the following, to encode the first row of the table: Note the difference between the "rdf" vocabulary and the "rdfs" vocabulary. rdf = https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/200203/ rdfs = https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_introduction (default) = https://uri.for.bonsai.namespace - Within the BONSAI namespace, create new signifiers for the collections between which the correspondence is made, like FAO_products rdf:type skos:Collection EXIOBASE_products rdf:type skos:Collection - Then for each row in the example, create a signifier and assign its label FAO_Agave_fibres_nes skos:member FAO_products FAO_Agave_fibres_nes rdfs:label "Agave fibres nes" - Similarly for each column: EXIOBASE_plant_based_fibres skos:member EXIOBASE_products EXIOBASE_plant_based_fibres rdfs:label "Plant-based fibres" - Then add the relationship FAO_Agave_fibres_nes skos:closeMatch EXIOBASE_plant_based_fibres Somebody correct me if I'm off base, but I think this is how we move from XLS to RDF.
|
|
|
|
Re: #correspondencetables - what needs to be done?
#correspondencetables
Michele is supposed to get this organized, but I can provide some inputs from my side:
This working group should have multiple outputs which build upon each other. a. Define a standard for correspondence tables, and convert everything we can find to that format. I am 100% convinced that this format should be https://frictionlessdata.io/specs/data-package/. Each correspondence table would consist of a CSV with the raw data, and a JSON file with the metadata. Our task would be to define the metadata format (building on what the OKFN has already done, we just need to fill some things in). The idea is that the metadata can be consistent and therefore machine-readable. For the CSV, we should discuss. 1-1 correspondence is easy. I think that 1-N and N-1 is also easy; one could have a two column format: foo, bar1 foo, bar2 and foo1, bar foo2, bar We could also have a third column that would give weights when more than one mapping is possible. But we want to do this right, so should look at the various proposal defined for "crosswalk" tables, how these mappings are stored in open source LCA software, etc. This should be a new repo, with one directory for the final product, one directory for the jupyter notebooks/whatever used to convert the raw data, and a third directory for the input data in its "native" form (if applicable). See https://open-power-system-data.org/ for inspiration. I see that Brandon has just responded to this question with a totally different answer, so I look forward to a good discussion! I believe that data packages are language and community agnostic and are therefore much more of a community resource than something RDF specific would be. As always, the more value we provide to our information, the higher the chance that it is used by others, and then maintained by others :) On the other hand, Brandon's approach allows us to express relationships much more concretely, and we would need this level of detail at some point in any case. b. Set up a simple web app at correspondence.bonsai.uno that would return these correspondence in multiple formats. Technically quite easy, and would be a good exercise to set up a BONSAI python web app skeleton. c. Write a Python library that would allow the easy application of these correspondence tables. During and maybe after the hackathon (or not - surprise me :)
|
|
|
|
Dear all Here is the link to join the group meeting for ontology and rdf schema. Those not in the group but just interested in the topic are welcome to join as well
Topic: BONSAI ontology and rdf group Agneta
|
|
|
|
Massimo Pizzol
I am teaching at 10:15 so will join for 15 min. ☺ BR
|
|
|
|
Re: purl domain for bonsai
#correspondencetables
#ontology
Bo Weidema
Hi,
I have tried to create a purl domain for BONSAI under https://archive.org/services/purl/ but I persistently get a "server error". I have asked the help mail address indicated (I did that 4 days ago) but have not receieved any reply. Anybody else have suggestions on what to do? Best regards Bo
|
|
|
|
Re: #reproduciblemodels working group - getting organized
#reproduciblemodels
Brandon Kuczenski
OK, I added a basic overview to the main README and added you all as contributors to the reproducibility repo. Please commit with wild abandon.
Regarding a call- I am free after 9am US pacific (I think 5pm CET) Thursday or Friday- not unfortunately Thursday night / Friday morning. Another possibility is to use github issues and comments for discussion. First person to open a new issue gets a cigar. -Brandon
|
|
|
|
Massimo Pizzol
Please send the minutes of the meeting. Here were important things discussed and decsions taken so we need them for BEP 0003 (and especially to stay up to date) BR
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone Please find the meeting minutes in the attached document.
|
|
|
|
Re: #correspondencetables - what needs to be done?
#correspondencetables
Thank you Miguel for starting this hashtag and thanks Chris and Brandon for the inputs. I have just created a new directory on GitHub for the work of this sub-group. The link to this discussion is mentioned in the Readme file.
|
|
|
|
Re: #correspondencetables - what needs to be done?
#correspondencetables
After some reflection, Brandon's approach is much more sensible than mine.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
We would then need to either generate a preliminary vocabulary ourselves, or get one from the #ontology folks. Do we know all possible verbs we want to include? For example, in 1-N mappings do we have a verb for the "default" option?
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 14:49, <michele.derosa@bonsai.uno> wrote:
--
############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|
|
|
Massimo Pizzol
Great minutes, thanks for sending them and I look really much forward to next meeting.
I’ll try to answer the question below:
>>>GitHub repos- BEP 0003 and Deliverables: If we plan to have two different platforms of GitHub. We must clarify on how they would be used by participants in the group. And most importantly avoid duplication of information Action – Ask Chris and Massimo on how they will be used.
The difference if I understand correctly is that the deliverables are used for operation while the BEP is used for management. Therefore they are separated. This should allow for minimal duplication of information. This is my understanding at least but please correct me if I am wrong. Massimo
|
|
|
|
Re: #reproduciblemodels working group - getting organized
#reproduciblemodels
Thanks Brandon for setting things up so nicely - I very much recommend
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
reading the repo readme that Brandon wrote if you haven't aready done this. We will adapt the scope of this working group as we go along, but let me give you the motivation for forming it in the first place. I am increasingly frustrated with the limitations of conventional LCA formulations. In particular, the assumed linearity and independence of parameters in the matrices makes little physical sense. Matrices have a lot going for them, but I see no reason that we can't get the best of both worlds: correlated, nonlinear sampling for individual product systems, placed in a larger linear system. Until we come up with a giant equilibrium model, this is probably a reasonable step forward. Here are the kinds of things where I personally would like to use these product system models: - Parameterized LCIs in ecoinvent - A model of auto transport which is adapted to load factors, driving cycle and context, and which correlates fuel inputs with air emissions - A model of electricity grid mixes which samples from time series data, getting a much more accurate picture of uncertainty across the various generation types But this idea comes with real questions on transparency, reproducibility, and ease of understanding. This is why I think we need some standards, best practices, and checklists. I know that Brandon has already done a lot here, though as far as I understand this was focused on a specific form of LCI model, not computer models for LCI (if that makes sense). So, for example, tests are great, but rarely help transparency, as most unit tests are focused on small parts of a model or library.
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:08, Brandon Kuczenski <bkuczenski@ucsb.edu> wrote:
--
############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|
|
|
I agree with Massimo; let me add a few thoughts.
1. There is no perfect schema, or at least we won't find one in the next weeks. So I think at some point it is better to have something with holes than nothing, as the other groups are already starting to write code. 2. Similarly, it would be quite nice to get a interchange format recommendation. You might not think this matters, but if you leave it to us we will all choose different things. Python people like JSON(-LD), but really up to you. 3. I can imagine ending up with multiple repos as we start to write code on conversion to other formats, or validation. But for now your repo is a way to document *how* you came up with what you did. The ontology will be questioned, as there is more than one way of modelling things, and especially LCA people all have their own mental model. So it is especially important to be as transparent as possible (e.g. minutes in formats that are searchable without download). 4. The BEP is the end product of your work - in it, you need to describe your proposal in detail, including what you considered and rejected. Someone should be able to follow the standard by only reading the BEP, though it is allowed in the BEP to reference external material (test cases, reference implementations, examples).
|
|
|
|
Re: ++for JSON-LD as interchange format
Bo Weidema
|
|
|
