Re: #ontology Can we come up with a better term than "Flow Object"? #ontology

Bo Weidema

To re-iterate: Flow is a verb, and should remain as the central term for our observations.

There seems to be a tendency towards preferring flow-item (instead of flow-object).

If we cannot settle this now, then add it as an issue with the arguments given in this thread.


Den 2019-04-03 kl. 13.57 skrev Agneta:

My suggestions are similar to what is given in the  ILCD 
Just to reiterate I suggest to change:

Flow object (abstract ) to Flow (a thing that exists)
Flow (specific) to Exchange (a relationship between an activity and flow (object)) 

Because we dont have any compartments we dont necessarily make additional confusions as the ILCD. Moreover, I think these terms are frequently used  by practitioners and hence easy to understand (the terms were also introduced in previous LCA ontology papers). Introducing new terms can just add confusion (IMO) 

Alternatively I suggest we  just go ahead with the current terminology and open the case for a public review. 


On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 13:45, <loekke@...> wrote:
Item is fine...

Agneta Ghose, PhD 
Post doc, The Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment  
Aalborg University
Rendsburggade 14
Aalborg 9000
( +45 93 56 2051


Join to automatically receive all group messages.