|
ESWC 2019 Trip Report
Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
Hi all,
I'm back from ESWC'19 in Portorož, Slovenia. The conference is a well known venue for Semantic Web researchers and practitioners. I've presented our work with the poster and we were lucky enough to win the best poster award: https://2019.eswc-conferences.org/awards/ In general I've talked to other people that worked in building ontologies and we all shared the struggle in finding the right vocabulary, and how to better reuse the existing ones and the standards. I've added a couple of interesting pointers as issues on github. For validation of user-submitted data, WikiData recently started adopting Shape Expressions http://shex.io/ For statistical data other groups suggested looking into the "statistical ontology" http://stato-ontology.org/ this one probably could represent the data that has uncertainty attached to it. A tool for visualization and editing of ontologies: http://owlgred.lumii.lv/ Among the people passing by asking for questions a person from Daimler expressed some interest, while a researcher from the German Aerospace Center was interested in understanding the Bonsai use case in relation to a W3C working group in which they are participating. We also got general approval from some design choices, among which the Ontology of Unit of measures we picked. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Matteo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: ESWC 2019 Trip Report
Bo Weidema
Congratulations with the poster award, and thanks for the report. Much appreciated! Bo Den 2019-06-07 kl. 18.01 skrev Matteo
Lissandrini (AAU):
Hi all, --
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Collaboration with TRASE project
Dear all-
I just had a productive conversation with Javier Godar and Michael Lathuillière from the TRASE project (https://trase.earth/). They are doing some really nice work (and already have some nice results!) in parallel with BONSAI, and have similar perspectives on open data and the value of open science. For example, they combine tax records, customs data, real-time ship monitoring (via satellite transponders), agricultural extension service municipal-level data, and other non-traditional data sources to get detailed footprints of agricultural commodity exports from several countries (see https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&;user=TIvEczoAAAAJ&sortby=pubdate). They also have existing collaborations with partners many of us would know about. They are also testing a switch from a relational DB to a graph-based DB. The next steps would be: - Invite someone(s) from TRASE to come to the next hackathon - Include TRASE in future grant proposals - I will have another call with them in the fall, and will invite BONSAIers to participate -Chris -- ############################ 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: Collaboration with TRASE project
Elias Sebastian Azzi
Hello,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Very interesting material. There are also some businesses working in the field of transparent supply chains (e.g. https://www.sourcemap.com/ ; never met them, just came across). mvh Elias
-----Original Message-----
From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Mutel Sent: den 2 juli 2019 14:04 To: main@bonsai.groups.io Subject: [bonsai] Collaboration with TRASE project Dear all- I just had a productive conversation with Javier Godar and Michael Lathuillière from the TRASE project (https://trase.earth/). They are doing some really nice work (and already have some nice results!) in parallel with BONSAI, and have similar perspectives on open data and the value of open science. For example, they combine tax records, customs data, real-time ship monitoring (via satellite transponders), agricultural extension service municipal-level data, and other non-traditional data sources to get detailed footprints of agricultural commodity exports from several countries (see https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&;user=TIvEczoAAAAJ&sortby=pubdate). They also have existing collaborations with partners many of us would know about. They are also testing a switch from a relational DB to a graph-based DB. The next steps would be: - Invite someone(s) from TRASE to come to the next hackathon - Include TRASE in future grant proposals - I will have another call with them in the fall, and will invite BONSAIers to participate -Chris -- ############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
opemod Aarhus
Miguel Fernández Astudillo
Dear all
A couple of months ago I went to the openmod workshop in Aarhus. One of the “do-a-thons” was a discussion about the ontology of scenarios. They are trying to find common ways to express scenarios resulting from different models so that they can be reused and compared. We discussed a bit about Bonsai, and they are of course interested. I think they have given a lot of thought to the concept of scenarios and I see them as interesting potential collaborators.
The talk was animated by Martin Glauer
(https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology )
https://openenergy-platform.org/
best,
Miguel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
International emissions inventory conference
Dear fellow Bonsamurais-
Just a quick note to let you know that I am currently at the International Emissions Inventory conference (agenda here) hosted by the US EPA. I will be presenting BONSAI, and talking about our idea of using independent data to validate and quantify uncertainty for our global and regional emission and production values. This is the real deal, people who know the details about measurements and models (e.g. in 30 minutes I will be at a talk on how to combine models, surrogate data, on-site measurements, and airborne observations to estimate total CH4 emissions for oil and gas production in the US), so let me know if you have any specific talks or questions. -Chris
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: International emissions inventory conference
Massimo Pizzol
Dear Chris
Any follow up on this, did you receive useful feedback? Thanks
From:
<main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Chris Mutel via Groups.Io" <cmutel@...>
Dear fellow Bonsamurais-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: SDG follow upSETAC UNOPS
LCA LCT
For the first time, sustainable development, broadly defined and all-encompassing, has been enshrined in international policy discussions and quickly adopted by national governments, NGOs and the global business community. The 17 SDGs are comprehensive and cover energy and climate; water, food and ecosystems; health and poverty; and jobs and innovation. The SDGs represent a major step forward towards linking human activity to economic, social or environmental consequences. The SDGs introduce the added benefit of encouraging the partnership of governments, private sector, civil society and citizens alike to make sure we leave a better planet for future generations. Governments throughout the world have declared the 17 SDGs and the 169 targets to be integrated and essential for future prosperity. The business community is reflecting on the relationships between the SDGs and sustainable corporate practices. The scientific community plays a critical role through research and experimentation to fill knowledge gaps in critical areas that elucidate the consequences of human activities. The SDGs are guide-posts for society as it attempts to respond to an array of pressing environmental challenges. Five years into the initiative, the editors felt it was a good time to explore where the research is and what is still needed to support these goals. During the editorial meeting at the SETAC Europe 29th Annual Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, attendees identified the following goals as most pertinent to IEAM:
We are seeking experts to submit full-length articles or write perspectives on their work pertaining to an SDG goal. Perspectives are short articles, 2–3 pages long, that:
We encourage potential authors to read our revised aims and scope, familiarize themselves with the author guidelines, contact us with any questions and submit their work! Authors’ contact information: rjwenning@...and jen.lynch@...
On Jul 9, 2019, at 21:04, LCA LCT <lca4all@...> wrote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
#project #communication
#project
#communication
Dear all,
the Denmark-based Bonsamurais have thought to arrange a 2 days in-person workshop to follow-up on some of the open issues left after the hackathon. The idea is to refresh our memories and hopefully to deliver some useful work in preparation for the next hackathon. We have identified the following two days as a good fit for the 5 of us in Denmark (Agneta, MASsimo, MATteo, MIChele, MIGuel): Friday 25 October - 9:30 to 16:00
Saturday 26th October - 9:00 to 15:30
We will be working from Aalborg, probably on some of the open issues of the BONSAI-ontology-RDF-framework or of the Correspondence-tables but we will be happy if anybody wants to join us remotely, even for a few hours. Please get in contact with me privately and we will figure out how to connect you remotely.
Here are some suggestions on topics we might work on: 1) Conversion of remaining data in Exiobase to RDF. For example, currently only the USE and SUPPLY tables have been converted based on the BONSAI core ontology. We still need to convert the extended tables in exiobase (that contain data on emissions etc) to RDF. For example, discussion are needed to make the conversion in the following cases:
- Issue 1 The USE table in Exiobase contains info on country of origin of the flow object (only Activity type and agent have location). This has not been incorporated in the core ontology. This needs discussion
- Issue 2 Certain flow objects and activity type instances present in the extended tables have not been defined.
2) Establish and document RDF vocabulary for correspondence tables: Currently it is still not clear which correspondence predicates are to be used and why. This is for open discussion on pros and cons of the various predicates available for correspondence from well established ontologies such as OWL and SKOS.
3) How to use Exiobase data in RDF format: the mojo repository was developed to convert raw rdf data into a computation structure (A matrix). The beebee repository was created to ensure the use of this data on open software such as brightway. However, the information and code in both repositories are not sufficient yet. This could be worked on.
4) Improve documentation which is currently very scattered (already ongoing work) Further suggestions and discussions are welcome.
Agneta and Michele
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: #project #communication
#project
#communication
Bo Weidema
Thanks for taking the initiative. I can attend remotely until 12:30 both days. Re. Issue
1 The USE table in Exiobase contains info on
country of origin of the flow object (only Activity type and
agent have location). This has not been incorporated in the core
ontology" I have added this comment: "The current ontology
already allows a flow to be bont:outputOf one activity and
bont:inputOf another activity. But for the SUT, the product flow
origin is redundant information that should be ignored. In a
true SUT, the flows enter and leave an activity but do not yet
have information on their origin and destination. This
information is added when linking the different activities into
a Direct Requirements Matrix. The EXIOBASE SUT is overspecified
in this sense that it already has interpreted the information in
the trade statistics in a specific (attributional) way. This
error should not be imported into the BONSAI implementation,
which should leave the user free to link SUT activities with
different linking algorithms (including one that we may decide
on being the preferred consensus one for "official" BONSAI
footprints)." Bo Den 2019-10-14 kl. 23.16 skrev
michele.derosa@...:
--
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: #project #communication
#project
#communication
Hi everyone I have uploaded a .md document with a short summary of the BONSAMURAIS repositories here . This document can be found in the repository named bonsai (which is pinned as the main repository under BONSAMURAIS). Agneta
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: #project #communication
#project
#communication
Hi,
I am partially available on Friday October 2th morning. If you can setup a zoom meeting so that we can participate that would be great guys. cheers,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: #project #communication
#project
#communication
Hi Tomas,
that sounds great. Here is the link to the zoom meeting: Topic: Aalborg Bonsamurais
Time: Oct 25, 2019 09:30 AM Copenhagen
Join Zoom Meeting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: #project #communication
#project
#communication
We are using the same link above for the meeting today
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: #bep0002 Proposal open for discussion
#bep0002
Is this still under discussion or can we vote on this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: #project #communication
#project
#communication
Thanks everyone for coming on board with the mini hackathon this weekend. Here are the minutes on what what we have been working with: 1- Clarified how different repositories are linked together. This information is updated in the bonsai main repository. The link to this repository is on the BONSAI web page. (Michele, Agneta, Massimo, Miguel) 3- .ttl files can now be accessed from rdf.bonsai.uno (Tomas) Cheers Agneta
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Collaboration between US EPA and BONSAI
Dear all-
Though you might not have heard about it, the US EPA has made a major commitment towards building an open data and open source toolchain for LCA, primarily for supporting projects by federal agencies in the US. This includes: * Almost 10.000 activities provided as open linked data (in JSON-LD) format via lcacommons.gov * Very active Github repos on elementary flows lists (https://github.com/USEPA/Federal-LCA-Commons-Elementary-Flow-List), standardizing, processing, and releasing electricity inventories (https://github.com/USEPA/ElectricityLCI), a detailed EEIO table for the US (https://github.com/USEPA/USEEIO), and standardizing and working with LCIA method implementations (https://github.com/USEPA/LCIAformatter). I think BONSAI both has a lot to learn from, and a lot to contribute to, this effort. As such, I think we urgently should get to know each other a bit. One possibility would be a 1-2 hour teleconference, where we each present our work, and discuss practical steps towards how we can help each other. Wes, please let us know if you would be interested (BONSAI is an open organization, you join by posting to the mailing list). To everyone else, please think a bit about a) where people who have to produce a complete working LCA system are choosing to invest their time, and whether there are any lessons for BONSAI, and b) why we have not been invited to be a part of this effort so far (what have been our weaknesses?). BONSAI is both a concrete set of source code repositories and a network of experts who are passionate about changing the status quo, we need to do a better job of helping people down productive paths and benefiting from our experience (see also a few more mails coming from me this evening :) -Chris -- ############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Introducing Thomas Maël
Dear all-
I recently had the pleasure of getting to know Thomas Maël, and exchanging messages on Hacker News (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21186182). Thomas is the author of https://futur.eco/, a tool that he put together in his spare time, and exactly the sort of thing that BONSAI should be the default data source for (Il n'est disponible qu'en français, mais j'espère que ce n'est pas un problème pour vous). Thomas will probably join the hackathon in the spring; Thomas, BONSAI is an open community, meaning that you join by posting to the mailing list. So post away :) To those working on the website, this is exactly where we would like to have a link to a beginner's guide! -Chris -- ############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thinking about how best to leverage our work so far
Dear all-
Disclaimer: The following could all be incorrect, it's late, I'm tired, people make mistakes, etc. As far as I know, there are currently three initiatives started recently to build large, open LCI databases: The PEF in Europe, the effort to harmonize LCI data generation in the US (led by the US EPA, but involving many federal agencies, see previous mailing list post), and a new database to be created in Canada. The PEF was led, or at least steered, by people with a lot of experience in the LCA community, and they followed their habits (and EU political instructions), by buying data from commercial databases (I include ecoinvent here), but requiring data delivery in the ILCD format. The PEF was a bit strange in that each product category went through a separate bidding process, as so each product category database lives on its own. Aggregated data is available, but not under an open license (see examples here: https://ecoinvent.lca-data.com/). The US EPA has a history of collaboration with Green Delta, built on their use of the OpenLCA software. OpenLCA is attractive both because it is open source and free (not the same thing :), but also because it is easy to deploy to many partners without too much training. As part of this collaboration, they developed the OpenLCA JSON-LD format (https://github.com/GreenDelta/olca-schema), which they use extensively, both in exchanging datasets and databases, but also in their tooling, elementary flow lists, etc. OLCA schema is different than our ontology, but it is a semantic web ontology, and it has great documentation and examples. Development by both US EPA and GreenDelta take place on GitHub, with a core group of a few people contributing most of the work. The Canadian effort is still under development, but is leaning towards working deeply with ecoinvent, which means not just integrating well with ecoinvent, but also adopting their toolchain for data input and validation, system modelling, etc. One person who is part of this effort told me (and I paraphrase): "I am sympathetic to working more closely with BONSAI, but I don't have anything hard to bring into meetings with others who appreciate open data as a practical good instead of a philosophical one." And they are right! Currently, we can't really point to a finished tool chain, though we are obviously trying to change this as fast as possible, thanks again to the Aalborg crew for the mini-hackathon this weekend. So BONSAI has effectively zero contribution to any of these three databases, even though all three are or will be open data. What I want to say is simple: There are a million problems, including a lot of fun ones. BONSAI really suffers from the fact that most of us are volunteers, and as such we want to work on fun problems, and not necessarily doing the second 90% of the work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule) that is needed to bring a tool from proof of concept to something that can be used by many people in actual practice. We have a lot of experience, and have made a lot of decisions as a group in a systematic and organized fashion, but we need to do a better job of translating our knowledge base into material that is easy for other to understand, benefit from, and use as arguments to build systems compatible with BONSAI. I contend that, after completing the 2019 hackathon toolchain, the most effective use of our resources would be to help others make systems that build on and work with BONSAI. If this supposition was true, how would this change where you chose to focus the limited free time you have available? -Chris -- ############################ 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: Thinking about how best to leverage our work so far
Eric Mieras
Hi Chris,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Although I have not been involved in the discussions lately, I wanted to respond to these observations as I think they make a lot of sense. As you know, we as PRé also started a Community Driven Initiative (CDLCI) together with some of the major database providers to make it easier to make sector and region specific data available. For that, we also collaborated with BONSAI and because we see a lot of value we also sponsored the hackathon. With CDLCI we want to focus on making the core data and methodological/procedural guidance available that everybody needs to build a database. Next to that, we're currently working on a number of projects to make regional databases available by unlocking data that is now only accessible within research institutes and other organizations. So, we're making progress but from time to time I have the same feeling that you express. There's so much to do and only limited time and resources. In my opinion the key issue is that everybody has the same "dream" and tries to achieve that (too much) on its own. If we can combine all the existing initiatives and identify where everybody's resources would be most effective I believe we can make much more progress. For that, we probably have to think about how to organize this ecosystem and what role everybody wants to play in that. If there's no attention to organizing this, the risk is that BONSAI identifies where it can have the biggest impact but that the direction is not aligned with the other actors in the ecosystem that can benefit from it. I realize this is not a direct answer to your question, but I believe it's important to consider this when thinking about where you chose to focus the limited free time you have available. Hope this helps the discussion forward. Best, Eric Mieras
-----Original Message-----
From: main@bonsai.groups.io [mailto:main@bonsai.groups.io] On Behalf Of Chris Mutel Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2019 23:44 To: main@bonsai.groups.io Subject: [bonsai] Thinking about how best to leverage our work so far Dear all- Disclaimer: The following could all be incorrect, it's late, I'm tired, people make mistakes, etc. As far as I know, there are currently three initiatives started recently to build large, open LCI databases: The PEF in Europe, the effort to harmonize LCI data generation in the US (led by the US EPA, but involving many federal agencies, see previous mailing list post), and a new database to be created in Canada. The PEF was led, or at least steered, by people with a lot of experience in the LCA community, and they followed their habits (and EU political instructions), by buying data from commercial databases (I include ecoinvent here), but requiring data delivery in the ILCD format. The PEF was a bit strange in that each product category went through a separate bidding process, as so each product category database lives on its own. Aggregated data is available, but not under an open license (see examples here: https://ecoinvent.lca-data.com/). The US EPA has a history of collaboration with Green Delta, built on their use of the OpenLCA software. OpenLCA is attractive both because it is open source and free (not the same thing :), but also because it is easy to deploy to many partners without too much training. As part of this collaboration, they developed the OpenLCA JSON-LD format (https://github.com/GreenDelta/olca-schema), which they use extensively, both in exchanging datasets and databases, but also in their tooling, elementary flow lists, etc. OLCA schema is different than our ontology, but it is a semantic web ontology, and it has great documentation and examples. Development by both US EPA and GreenDelta take place on GitHub, with a core group of a few people contributing most of the work. The Canadian effort is still under development, but is leaning towards working deeply with ecoinvent, which means not just integrating well with ecoinvent, but also adopting their toolchain for data input and validation, system modelling, etc. One person who is part of this effort told me (and I paraphrase): "I am sympathetic to working more closely with BONSAI, but I don't have anything hard to bring into meetings with others who appreciate open data as a practical good instead of a philosophical one." And they are right! Currently, we can't really point to a finished tool chain, though we are obviously trying to change this as fast as possible, thanks again to the Aalborg crew for the mini-hackathon this weekend. So BONSAI has effectively zero contribution to any of these three databases, even though all three are or will be open data. What I want to say is simple: There are a million problems, including a lot of fun ones. BONSAI really suffers from the fact that most of us are volunteers, and as such we want to work on fun problems, and not necessarily doing the second 90% of the work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule) that is needed to bring a tool from proof of concept to something that can be used by many people in actual practice. We have a lot of experience, and have made a lot of decisions as a group in a systematic and organized fashion, but we need to do a better job of translating our knowledge base into material that is easy for other to understand, benefit from, and use as arguments to build systems compatible with BONSAI. I contend that, after completing the 2019 hackathon toolchain, the most effective use of our resources would be to help others make systems that build on and work with BONSAI. If this supposition was true, how would this change where you chose to focus the limited free time you have available? -Chris -- ############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
