Date   

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

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. 

Agneta


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



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



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

Søren
 

Item is fine...
/Søren


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

Rutger Schurgers
 

Hi group,

 

Bo is right, I looked at the ecospold2 source files to refresh my memory and they indeed call their master data elementary exchanges and intermediate exchanges. So it is actually only in the ILCD format that they do make the distinction between the flow-objects that they call flows and the flows that they call exchanges. And ILCD is confusing as well, as their flows are from both the technosphere and nature (so some have compartments while others don’t). So steel is a flow, as well as Carbon dioxide. That’s not very obvious, and I would say that by themselves, as we would like to consider them, they are not ‘flowing’ anywhere.

 

At PRé we haven’t come up with anything so far that covers all possible flow-objects. In the platform, we have a two types: substances and products. But the fact that they are separate and that substances also include things like labour and land use indicate that they aren’t the best solution either.

 

That was a bit of thinking out loud, not sure it is very helpful but it indicates that it has been a struggle for quite a few people already.

 

Back to what Bo suggested, intuitively flow-item sounds a bit better to me. Given the breath of things we want to cover with the term, there’s probably not much that sounds less abstract. But if someone comes up with a term that sounds a bit more friendly, I’m interested.

 

Regards,

 

Rutger

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io [mailto:main@bonsai.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bo Weidema
Sent: 03 April 2019 12:11
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] #ontology Can we come up with a better term than "Flow Object"?

 

The important issue is to distinguish between the observation of a specific flow (e.g. 22 kg input of steel) and the abstract flow-object ("steel"). This distinction was not made clear in e.g. ecospold schema where the exchange = flow and the abstract flow-object is simply called "intermediateExchangeId" or "elementaryExchangeId" referring to a taxonomy of "master data".

I do not think it makes much difference if we call it flow-object or flow-item, so if there is a preference for the latter that would be OK with me. Exchange has the problem that it is easily confused with a market operation (e.g. currency exchange). So I think "flow" is still the best option, as this is either an input or an output.

Bo


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

Massimo Pizzol
 

>>> The important issue is to distinguish between the observation of a specific flow (e.g. 22 kg input of steel) and the abstract flow-object ("steel").

>>> I do not think it makes much difference if we call it flow-object or flow-item.

 

IMO this is the clearest explanation so far, thanks Bo. I am fine with the word “item” instead of “object”.

 

Note there is an enhancements branch on BEP-0003 BONSAI Ontology and I guess these discussions should be reflected there….

 

BR
Massimo

 


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

Andreas Ciroth
 

Thank you Chris; I agree and would add that ‘Flow-object’ is also not too perfect. No other element is called “object”. And exchange just says: see flow.

Proposal from my side:

  • Flow object is changed to flow
  • Exchange takes the definition of flow
  • Flow is removed.

This without being aware of previous discussions, so please excuse if I am ignorant here..

All the best,

Andreas

 

Von: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Chris Mutel
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. April 2019 11:07
An: main@bonsai.groups.io
Betreff: [bonsai] #ontology Can we come up with a better term than "Flow Object"?

 

Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but "flow object" is just... not great. It is inconsistent with all our other core terms, it rolls off the tongue like a porcupine, and I guarantee you that it will produce a confused look on 80% of the faces of people who see it for the first time.

The problem is that "flow" is good, but has no natural counterpart (aside from "flow"...). One possibility would be to switch to "flow" and "exchange" - I am sure this was considered and rejected at some point, however. We define "flow object" as:

Entity that is able to be exchanged between two activities, produced or consumed by activities, or stored by a (stock accumulation) activity. This is one of the identifying dimensions of a datapoint (and the database).

"Entity" is probably too loose, as is "object". "Flux" is a bit too cute, and too similar to "flow." What about "item"? It encapsulates the idea that every thing we want to track would be an item instance. One definition is "an individual article or unit, especially one that is part of a list, collection, or set," which fits pretty well. Or maybe someone else has a creative idea? There are lots of online thesaurus sites out there :)

If there is previous discussion on this, please post links - it is hard to get much from the wiki history.


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

Bo Weidema
 

The important issue is to distinguish between the observation of a specific flow (e.g. 22 kg input of steel) and the abstract flow-object ("steel"). This distinction was not made clear in e.g. ecospold schema where the exchange = flow and the abstract flow-object is simply called "intermediateExchangeId" or "elementaryExchangeId" referring to a taxonomy of "master data".

I do not think it makes much difference if we call it flow-object or flow-item, so if there is a preference for the latter that would be OK with me. Exchange has the problem that it is easily confused with a market operation (e.g. currency exchange). So I think "flow" is still the best option, as this is either an input or an output.

Bo


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

Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
 

Hi all,
like John Snow, I know nothing.

From an outsider perspective the current definition is extremely clear, as it related the Flow and the Object of the Flow (aka Flow Object).

While all other proposal are much more confusing (Flow and Exchange are two dynamic terms)

The only other words I can thing of would be Phenomenon for the Flow and Noumenon for the Flow Object, but I guess bothering  Kant is not a great idea :)

I suggest somebody creates a BEP then :)

Cheers,
Matteo










From: main@bonsai.groups.io [main@bonsai.groups.io] on behalf of Rutger Schurgers via Groups.Io [schurgers@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 11:57 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] #ontology Can we come up with a better term than "Flow Object"?

Hi group,

 

Exchange is actually what’s being used in the ecospold2 and ILCD data formats as well. They have flows as well, though they include compartment too. In the SimaPro platform, we don’t include compartments so that matches what we have in Bonsai. To keep things consistent, I’d support using these terms. We don’t use the term exchange in the platform, but I’m considering adopting it as well. The different terms we’re using now cause a lot of confusion and time lost.

 

Regards,

 

Rutger

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io [mailto:main@bonsai.groups.io] On Behalf Of Agneta
Sent: 03 April 2019 11:37
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] #ontology Can we come up with a better term than "Flow Object"?

 

So the issue is back!

Well I did raise the point about terms like flow and 'flow object' being confusing and likely that someone new to the ontology might have some difficulty in understanding the differences or even use them interchangeably. I looked up the thesaurus and unfortunately I don't think there is anything that sufficiently translates 'object'/'thing'/'entity'. Some suggested words were- 'element', 'substance, 'item' , 'component'.  

In my humble opinion- I would like to go back to suggestions as defined in previously published LCA ontology (Kuczenski et al. 2016):

Activity- is a “thing that happens”

Flow- is a “thing in the world that exists because of some instance of an Activity."

Exchange- " An exchange is an established relationship between an activity instance and a flow instance." This can be an input/output/ determining.

 

I think this terminology is coherent with the vocabulary used by most industrial ecologist.

There is another term that I find slightly problematic is 'Balanceable properties' . As this class primarily consists of certain specific quantities, I was wondering if we could refer to it as 'quantity types' or 'quantity attributes' ?

I will also put this discussion as an issue in out GitHub repo. 


Re: Vote for BEP-0001 #bep0001 #poll

Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
 

Hi all,
the BEP seems fine to me.

I have only 2 comments:
- I would have preferred it to be called "BEP000" for vanity reasons :)
- I think each future BEP should include a link to the rules in participating to a BEP discussion


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

Rutger Schurgers
 

Hi group,

 

Exchange is actually what’s being used in the ecospold2 and ILCD data formats as well. They have flows as well, though they include compartment too. In the SimaPro platform, we don’t include compartments so that matches what we have in Bonsai. To keep things consistent, I’d support using these terms. We don’t use the term exchange in the platform, but I’m considering adopting it as well. The different terms we’re using now cause a lot of confusion and time lost.

 

Regards,

 

Rutger

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io [mailto:main@bonsai.groups.io] On Behalf Of Agneta
Sent: 03 April 2019 11:37
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] #ontology Can we come up with a better term than "Flow Object"?

 

So the issue is back!

Well I did raise the point about terms like flow and 'flow object' being confusing and likely that someone new to the ontology might have some difficulty in understanding the differences or even use them interchangeably. I looked up the thesaurus and unfortunately I don't think there is anything that sufficiently translates 'object'/'thing'/'entity'. Some suggested words were- 'element', 'substance, 'item' , 'component'.  

In my humble opinion- I would like to go back to suggestions as defined in previously published LCA ontology (Kuczenski et al. 2016):

Activity- is a “thing that happens”

Flow- is a “thing in the world that exists because of some instance of an Activity."

Exchange- " An exchange is an established relationship between an activity instance and a flow instance." This can be an input/output/ determining.

 

I think this terminology is coherent with the vocabulary used by most industrial ecologist.

There is another term that I find slightly problematic is 'Balanceable properties' . As this class primarily consists of certain specific quantities, I was wondering if we could refer to it as 'quantity types' or 'quantity attributes' ?

I will also put this discussion as an issue in out GitHub repo. 


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

Agneta
 

So the issue is back!

Well I did raise the point about terms like flow and 'flow object' being confusing and likely that someone new to the ontology might have some difficulty in understanding the differences or even use them interchangeably. I looked up the thesaurus and unfortunately I don't think there is anything that sufficiently translates 'object'/'thing'/'entity'. Some suggested words were- 'element', 'substance, 'item' , 'component'.  

In my humble opinion- I would like to go back to suggestions as defined in previously published LCA ontology (Kuczenski et al. 2016):

Activity- is a “thing that happens”

Flow- is a “thing in the world that exists because of some instance of an Activity."

Exchange- " An exchange is an established relationship between an activity instance and a flow instance." This can be an input/output/ determining.

 

I think this terminology is coherent with the vocabulary used by most industrial ecologist.

There is another term that I find slightly problematic is 'Balanceable properties' . As this class primarily consists of certain specific quantities, I was wondering if we could refer to it as 'quantity types' or 'quantity attributes' ?

I will also put this discussion as an issue in out GitHub repo. 


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

 

Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but "flow object" is just... not great. It is inconsistent with all our other core terms, it rolls off the tongue like a porcupine, and I guarantee you that it will produce a confused look on 80% of the faces of people who see it for the first time.

The problem is that "flow" is good, but has no natural counterpart (aside from "flow"...). One possibility would be to switch to "flow" and "exchange" - I am sure this was considered and rejected at some point, however. We define "flow object" as:
Entity that is able to be exchanged between two activities, produced or consumed by activities, or stored by a (stock accumulation) activity. This is one of the identifying dimensions of a datapoint (and the database).
"Entity" is probably too loose, as is "object". "Flux" is a bit too cute, and too similar to "flow." What about "item"? It encapsulates the idea that every thing we want to track would be an item instance. One definition is "an individual article or unit, especially one that is part of a list, collection, or set," which fits pretty well. Or maybe someone else has a creative idea? There are lots of online thesaurus sites out there :)

If there is previous discussion on this, please post links - it is hard to get much from the wiki history.


Vote for BEP-0001 #bep0001 #poll

Michele De Rosa
 

Dear all, 

it is time to vote for the BEP-0001 (BONSAI Enhancement Proposal Template):

  • The proposal has been standing for a month.
  • The proposed template has already been used for other BEPs.
  • No major comments and/or modifications were submitted during the last 3 weeks.

Ballot question:
Do you accept the BEP-0001 (BONSAI Enhancement Proposal Template)?

The vote will be open until 17th of April 6pm CET. Results will be announced as soon as a valid majority is reached, thus earlier than the 17th if possible. 

The voting procedure is described in the following voting procedure 

Michele

Results

See Who Responded


Re: BEP-0004 BONSAI knowledge management and communication strategy | open for discussion / seeking editor

Michele De Rosa
 

Thanks Tom. Just a few update that should be in the text of the BEP:

  • the google drive has been removed and the file added to an Archive section of bonsai.uno as agreed. That bullet point could be removed.
  • Bonsai.uno includes now explicit references and links to the github, its wiki and the discussion list homepage. The "contribute" and "become a member" sections have also been updated as agreed before.
Michele


Re: BEP-0004 BONSAI knowledge management and communication strategy | open for discussion / seeking editor

 

Thanks Tom, this is really exciting!

I would like to remind people of the process around BEPs. The BEP is a draft, meaning that it is still under development. It doesn't need an editor yet. The "working group" for this BEP is everyone, as we need your input to make sure that this plan seems reasonable. However, please do not edit the BEP directly (unless you are Tom) - instead, either respond to this email with suggestions and comments, or fork the repo, make some changes, and submit a pull request that Tom will merge.

Some comments on the proposal itself:

  1. There are some cases where an active voice is needed, as this would be the ruleset. E.g. "It is proposed that no other new mediums should be created without advanced discussion" should be "No other ...".
  2. We are already building web apps for the hackathon as subdomains of bonsai.uno, e.g. https://hackathon.bonsai.uno/.
  3. "Proposed action (in addition to these):" - the link is broken. Maybe it is simpler just to list the additional actions.
  4. "The Mailing List" section - I think we should be clearer here that the mailing list of for conceptual discussion, in addition to areas where a consensus needs to be found (both within the working group, but also places where useful outputs could be obtained from the broader community), while issues are for project management and technical implementation.
  5. "apporpriate"
  6. "This issue" - Let's list the issue name
  7. Testing plad should be two-fold, the first phase being at the hackathon with its participants, the second being outside observers who are vaguely familiar with BONSAI, e.g. Xioajin Zhang, Oleg Lavrovsky.


BEP-0004 BONSAI knowledge management and communication strategy | open for discussion / seeking editor

Tom
 


Feel free to reply here.

Kind regards,
Tom


Re: #BEP0001 - Community governance through enhancement proposals #bep0001

Michele De Rosa
 

FYI: An improved version of the text above has been merged to the original text (see here).


Re: A new #project board to visualize #project #issues

Michele De Rosa
 

Correct. My opinion is that the project board should be under the "Main" Bonsai directory because:

  • it is becoming increasingly hard to figure what has been posted where; it will become even more so when the resources increase. Thus, a "root" folder with the project board would be welcome.
  • several projects may concern the hackathon as much as the longer term Bonsai goals and some of the sub-groups for the hackathon too. In these cases, under which directory should the project item be listed? Under the sub-group directories, the hackathon directory or the Bonsai directory?
  • some of the sub-groups have some dependencies. It would be an advantage to have a common directory that we will all have to access to find the project board, regardless of the sub-group we contribute to. 
  • the project board should have links to the tasks described in the wiki, which is un the Bonsai directory
PS: the name of the root GitHub, BONASMURAI (instead of BONSAI), is due to the fact that the latter name was taken.

Michele


Re: A new #project board to visualize #project #issues

Massimo Pizzol
 

>So the question is to know what the repository "bonsai" should really be about...

I have filed an issue in that repo that is precisely about this problem, I.e making a more clear read me about that the bonsai repo should be used for and reorganize the files and code into folders


Re: A new #project board to visualize #project #issues

romain
 

The issue though with moving the Project board to the first level (BONSAMURAIS), is that BONSAMURAIS is not really a repo in itself (it's more a like front page) and hence, and one cannot create Issues within it, it seems. It's a bit annoying. We can make a project board and populate it with Issues, but those Issues have to remain in one of the repos (e.g., bonsai). So the question is to know what the repository "bonsai" should really be about...


Re: A new #project board to visualize #project #issues

romain
 

OK then, we'll try to move that to the first level.

/romain