very good discussion! To the USP especially, in my view it is at present (not using the technically correct terms here probably I am afraid)
For me, and I have said this earlier, the second bullet limits the scope unnecessarily; the first we address to quite some extent at GreenDelta now (and have contributed to GLAD, created Nexus, the IO model builder, and are involved in the interesting US EPA activities now). There are other initiatives, but often a disappointment as the focus is more on presentations, and the procedures really slow (like, again, GLAD, where the current page is very similar to our Nexus site from 5 years ago, only that GLAD does not directly provide access to the listed datasets).
There are now unfortunately really few people who understand the technical side of LCA data, and therefore capacity building is good but also it is good to join forces. A limitation to free data makes / made bonsai attractive for providers of closed-source for purchase software tools (who can then use free data in their tools and continue to sell the tools) but misses in my view the full picture. In my view, the whole “supply chain” of data for LCA studies covers data and tools integrating the data, and should be provided to users in an affordable way.
All the best and I am looking forward to the exchange,
Von: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> Im Auftrag von Massimo Pizzol
I second this comment too. Focus on integration, good documentation, create a critical mass and then facilitating contributions.
I would add that for me the challenging aspects in previous hackathons was:
Perhaps this is mostly related to the “documentation” aspect and should be addressed as part of documentation.
From: <email@example.com> on behalf of "Matteo Lissandrini (AAU) via groups.io" <matteo@...>
My comment is the following:
The real value proposition that none of the existing resources seems to have is the possibility to *integrate* multiple data sources.
*Integrate* is complementary but very different from *aggregate*.
Resources like :
are not dissimilar to
are aggregators of data. You can find a dataset, but then you are on your own in determining if the dataset contains the data you need, has the correct format, is coherent with your model, adapt it to your workflow, etc.
What I see on GLAD (but I only read the homepage) seems more towards the *integration*, which is good, we should keep a close eye on that.
I think the BONSAI with the Ontology and Mapping resources is a step ahead in the *integration* direction.
I think the next step is documentation, from LCA domain experts interested in integrating data (BONSAI) for LCA domain expert interested in sharing data (all the providers).
As we have a lot of tooling and work done and we just need to show people how to contribute.
With more contribution we obtain more use-cases, we bullet-proof the workflow, and we improve.
Yes, documentation is boring, and most of us don't feel are achieving anything if we are not writing code, calculating numbers, or running experiments.
Yet, I see this as the crucial part for "lift-off", otherwise our space shuttle will always stay in the hangar redesigning the engine for N-th time but never turning it on.
Department of Computer Science
Sent: 23 June 2020 16:58:26
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Request for comment before BONSAI 2020 General Assembly #dataliberation #communication
- BONSAI and other projects (Electricity LCI<https://github.com/USEPA/ElectricityLCI>, US EEIO<https://github.com/USEPA/USEEIO> LCIA base data<https://github.com/USEPA/Federal-LCA-Commons-Elementary-Flow-List>, LCIA data formats<https://github.com/USEPA/LCIAformatter>, CDLCI project<https://www.pre-sustainability.com/news/harness-the-power-of-the-lca-community>, GLAD<https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/life-cycle-initiative/global-lca-data-access-network>, IEDC<http://www.database.industrialecology.uni-freiburg.de>,...): I agree that it is hard to keep up with the numerous projects out there. We should definitely avoid reinventing the wheel. The question is: How? Adopting existing data, formats, etc. is good. But how can we do that if we don't know about them? Do we need some sort of "radar" for new projects and a "screening system" to filter out the portions of those projects, which are interesting for us?
- Community engagement: I agree. I don't know if the existing BONSAI technology can help. Would be awesome if it could! If not, we need to find better ways to engage the community. Pré's LCAList is a good place to find advice but it is a poor place for collaboration. GitHub is a great place for collaboration but I don't think many people from the LCAList are there. I wonder if there is a way to bridge the gap between both communities.
- BONSAI's 2nd work track: I was originally in favor of this idea but I lost momentum because I felt like support within BONSAI was weak. Furthermore, I feel like the release of GLAD made this the work track obsolete (although I might be wrong). I think there should be a new discussion about this.
- Hackathon: I really regret that there is no in-person hackathon this year. For a newbie like me this would have presented a great opportunity to get to know everyone. Furthermore, I was planning to use it as an opportunity to get acquainted with the work previously done in BONSAI. I agree that an online hackathon is a poor substitute. But I think that an online hackathon is better than no hackathon :)
That's it from me. Looking forward to hearing the results from the GA.