Date   

Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
 

Thank Miguel!


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of miguel.astudillo via Groups.Io <miguel.astudillo@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 3:28:59 PM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 

Hi Mateo

 

I can give it a go for the isic section, that should be straight forward. I have many nace rev 2 activities “mapped” to exiobase activity names, reverse it to get the section should be easy.

 

Products are a different kettle of fish, I have not yet worked with product classifications.

 

Best, Miguel

 

Miguel-Astudillo-vcard

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> On Behalf Of Konstantin Stadler
Sent: 30 October 2019 15:19
To: main@bonsai.groups.io; Matteo Lissandrini (AAU) <matteo@...>; main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Hi.
I am currently on sick-leave but I can send you tables we used during the compilation on Friday/start next week.

Best
Konstantin

On 30 October 2019 14:39:24 CET, "Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)" <matteo@...> wrote:

Thanks Bo, Miguel,

 

do you think you can help me materialize this high-level correspondence table then?

 

Also, this is for activity or flow objects? We would need both..

 

Thanks,

Matteo

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo





From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of miguel.astudillo via Groups.Io <miguel.astudillo@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:06:10 PM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Hi

 

This is an open issue https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/Correspondence-tables/issues/10

 

The correspondence between exiobase activities and isic “codes” does not exist. It is not trivial problem because some activities correspond to different “hierarchival levels”. Some are quite broad, others are more specific.

 

For this very broad classification, the easiest would be to use the highest level of aggregation (isic sections).

 

 

Best,

 

Miguel

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bo Weidema
Sent: 30 October 2019 13:25
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

He, he, ideally they would be in our correspondence table collection...

 

But here: https://sdmx.org/wp-content/uploads/CL_ACTIVITY_ISIC4_1.0.xls

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 12.10 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

That would be great,

where do I find them?

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo




From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:50:33 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Hi Matteo,

 

Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?

 

Best regards

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.

 

Thanks,

Matteo

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo




From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta

--

--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
 

Thanks Konstantin, really appreciated,

where are this tables from?


Best wishes,

Matteo

 


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: Konstantin Stadler <konstantin.stadler@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 3:18:46 PM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io; Matteo Lissandrini; main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 
Hi.
I am currently on sick-leave but I can send you tables we used during the compilation on Friday/start next week.

Best
Konstantin

On 30 October 2019 14:39:24 CET, "Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)" <matteo@...> wrote:

Thanks Bo, Miguel,


do you think you can help me materialize this high-level correspondence table then?


Also, this is for activity or flow objects? We would need both..


Thanks,

Matteo


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of miguel.astudillo via Groups.Io <miguel.astudillo@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:06:10 PM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 

Hi

 

This is an open issue https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/Correspondence-tables/issues/10

 

The correspondence between exiobase activities and isic “codes” does not exist. It is not trivial problem because some activities correspond to different “hierarchival levels”. Some are quite broad, others are more specific.

 

For this very broad classification, the easiest would be to use the highest level of aggregation (isic sections).

 

 

Best,

 

Miguel

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bo Weidema
Sent: 30 October 2019 13:25
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

He, he, ideally they would be in our correspondence table collection...

 

But here: https://sdmx.org/wp-content/uploads/CL_ACTIVITY_ISIC4_1.0.xls

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 12.10 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

That would be great,

where do I find them?

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo





From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:50:33 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Hi Matteo,

 

Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?

 

Best regards

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.

 

Thanks,

Matteo

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo





From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta

--

--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Miguel Fernández Astudillo
 

Hi Mateo

 

I can give it a go for the isic section, that should be straight forward. I have many nace rev 2 activities “mapped” to exiobase activity names, reverse it to get the section should be easy.

 

Products are a different kettle of fish, I have not yet worked with product classifications.

 

Best, Miguel

 

Miguel-Astudillo-vcard

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> On Behalf Of Konstantin Stadler
Sent: 30 October 2019 15:19
To: main@bonsai.groups.io; Matteo Lissandrini (AAU) <matteo@...>; main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Hi.
I am currently on sick-leave but I can send you tables we used during the compilation on Friday/start next week.

Best
Konstantin

On 30 October 2019 14:39:24 CET, "Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)" <matteo@...> wrote:

Thanks Bo, Miguel,

 

do you think you can help me materialize this high-level correspondence table then?

 

Also, this is for activity or flow objects? We would need both..

 

Thanks,

Matteo

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo





From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of miguel.astudillo via Groups.Io <miguel.astudillo@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:06:10 PM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Hi

 

This is an open issue https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/Correspondence-tables/issues/10

 

The correspondence between exiobase activities and isic “codes” does not exist. It is not trivial problem because some activities correspond to different “hierarchival levels”. Some are quite broad, others are more specific.

 

For this very broad classification, the easiest would be to use the highest level of aggregation (isic sections).

 

 

Best,

 

Miguel

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bo Weidema
Sent: 30 October 2019 13:25
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

He, he, ideally they would be in our correspondence table collection...

 

But here: https://sdmx.org/wp-content/uploads/CL_ACTIVITY_ISIC4_1.0.xls

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 12.10 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

That would be great,

where do I find them?

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo




From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:50:33 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Hi Matteo,

 

Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?

 

Best regards

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.

 

Thanks,

Matteo

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo




From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta

--

--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Konstantin Stadler
 

Hi.
I am currently on sick-leave but I can send you tables we used during the compilation on Friday/start next week.

Best
Konstantin


On 30 October 2019 14:39:24 CET, "Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)" <matteo@...> wrote:

Thanks Bo, Miguel,


do you think you can help me materialize this high-level correspondence table then?


Also, this is for activity or flow objects? We would need both..


Thanks,

Matteo


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of miguel.astudillo via Groups.Io <miguel.astudillo@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:06:10 PM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 

Hi

 

This is an open issue https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/Correspondence-tables/issues/10

 

The correspondence between exiobase activities and isic “codes” does not exist. It is not trivial problem because some activities correspond to different “hierarchival levels”. Some are quite broad, others are more specific.

 

For this very broad classification, the easiest would be to use the highest level of aggregation (isic sections).

 

 

Best,

 

Miguel

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bo Weidema
Sent: 30 October 2019 13:25
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

He, he, ideally they would be in our correspondence table collection...

 

But here: https://sdmx.org/wp-content/uploads/CL_ACTIVITY_ISIC4_1.0.xls

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 12.10 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

That would be great,

where do I find them?

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo





From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:50:33 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Hi Matteo,

 

Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?

 

Best regards

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.

 

Thanks,

Matteo

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo





From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta

--

--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
 

Thanks Bo, Miguel,


do you think you can help me materialize this high-level correspondence table then?


Also, this is for activity or flow objects? We would need both..


Thanks,

Matteo


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of miguel.astudillo via Groups.Io <miguel.astudillo@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:06:10 PM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 

Hi

 

This is an open issue https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/Correspondence-tables/issues/10

 

The correspondence between exiobase activities and isic “codes” does not exist. It is not trivial problem because some activities correspond to different “hierarchival levels”. Some are quite broad, others are more specific.

 

For this very broad classification, the easiest would be to use the highest level of aggregation (isic sections).

 

 

Best,

 

Miguel

Miguel-Astudillo-vcard

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bo Weidema
Sent: 30 October 2019 13:25
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

He, he, ideally they would be in our correspondence table collection...

 

But here: https://sdmx.org/wp-content/uploads/CL_ACTIVITY_ISIC4_1.0.xls

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 12.10 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

That would be great,

where do I find them?

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo





From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:50:33 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Hi Matteo,

 

Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?

 

Best regards

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.

 

Thanks,

Matteo

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo





From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta

--

--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Miguel Fernández Astudillo
 

Hi

 

This is an open issue https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/Correspondence-tables/issues/10

 

The correspondence between exiobase activities and isic “codes” does not exist. It is not trivial problem because some activities correspond to different “hierarchival levels”. Some are quite broad, others are more specific.

 

For this very broad classification, the easiest would be to use the highest level of aggregation (isic sections).

 

 

Best,

 

Miguel

Miguel-Astudillo-vcard

 

From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bo Weidema
Sent: 30 October 2019 13:25
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

He, he, ideally they would be in our correspondence table collection...

 

But here: https://sdmx.org/wp-content/uploads/CL_ACTIVITY_ISIC4_1.0.xls

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 12.10 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

That would be great,

where do I find them?

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo





From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:50:33 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Hi Matteo,

 

Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?

 

Best regards

 

Bo

 

Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.

 

Thanks,

Matteo

 

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo





From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

 

Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta

--

--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Bo Weidema
 

It "covers" in the sense "includes" all economic ("industrial") activities, but Exiobase may in some cases be more detailed, in which case this is just an additional hierarchical level. In the same way, levels above could be added (to cover add markets and consumption activities to the industrial, thus to cover all human activities, and anotehr level even higher to cover also environmental mechanisms).


Best regards


Bo


Den 2019-10-30 kl. 13.44 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Thanks Bo,


it seems this does not cover all that we have  in Exiobase though...?


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 1:25:23 PM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 

He, he, ideally they would be in our correspondence table collection...


But here: https://sdmx.org/wp-content/uploads/CL_ACTIVITY_ISIC4_1.0.xls


Bo


Den 2019-10-30 kl. 12.10 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

That would be great,

where do I find them?


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:50:33 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 

Hi Matteo,


Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?


Best regards


Bo


Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.


Thanks,

Matteo


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 
Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta
--
--
--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
 

Thanks Bo,


it seems this does not cover all that we have  in Exiobase though...?


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 1:25:23 PM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 

He, he, ideally they would be in our correspondence table collection...


But here: https://sdmx.org/wp-content/uploads/CL_ACTIVITY_ISIC4_1.0.xls


Bo


Den 2019-10-30 kl. 12.10 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

That would be great,

where do I find them?


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:50:33 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 

Hi Matteo,


Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?


Best regards


Bo


Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.


Thanks,

Matteo


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 
Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta
--
--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Bo Weidema
 

He, he, ideally they would be in our correspondence table collection...


But here: https://sdmx.org/wp-content/uploads/CL_ACTIVITY_ISIC4_1.0.xls


Bo


Den 2019-10-30 kl. 12.10 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

That would be great,

where do I find them?


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:50:33 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 

Hi Matteo,


Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?


Best regards


Bo


Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.


Thanks,

Matteo


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 
Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta
--
--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
 

That would be great,

where do I find them?


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Bo Weidema via Groups.Io <bo.weidema@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:50:33 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 

Hi Matteo,


Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?


Best regards


Bo


Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.


Thanks,

Matteo


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 
Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta
--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Bo Weidema
 

Hi Matteo,


Would it not be smartest to use the top categories from one of the classifications, such as ISIC4?


Best regards


Bo


Den 2019-10-30 kl. 11.23 skrev Matteo Lissandrini (AAU):

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.


Thanks,

Matteo


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 
Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta
--


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
 

Sorry, now is open to anyone for comment,

let me know your email for edit acces.


Thanks,

Matteo


---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of Agneta via Groups.Io <agneta.20@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:47:09 AM
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox
 
Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta


Re: Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Agneta
 

Could you please provide access to the document?
\Agneta


Categories for Exiobase Activities and Flow Objects to enable Exploration #ontology #toolbox

Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
 

Hi all,

as mentioned already to some of you,  I'm working on a tool that helps people without SPARQL know-how to explore large RDF data (like our Bonsai triplestore)

This tool works best when the objects to explore have assigned one or more categories (e.g., Italy is an EU country, while Canada is a North America).
Having these categories will also enable me to enrich the dataset with QB[1] and QB4OLAP annotations[2].

I've prepared an initial temporary categorization of Activity Types and Flow Objects in this google spreadsheet (2 sheets).
They are likely to be very wrong.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1In-ACKI3ddMwpmMpSplw0JzaliPy-kku2Xbto_CzYpk/edit?usp=sharing

Could you please provide me some better alternatives?
Now you should be able to comment, but if you provide me with an email address I will add you with edit permission.

If you have any further question, please let me know.
Thanks,
Matteo

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/
[2] https://github.com/lorenae/qb4olap


Re: Collaboration between US EPA and BONSAI

Ingwersen, Wesley
 

Dear Chris and BONSAI group,

This is a great suggestion to put some effort into briefing each other on our activities in building open data and models for LCA and brainstorm about how we and where we might collaborate. Chris I will work with you to try to schedule meetings to get this started.

Regards,
Wes


Wesley W. Ingwersen, Ph.D.
Environmental Decision Analytics Branch/Land Remediation and Technology Division Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER) US EPA Office of Research and Development
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Mutel <@cmutel>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2019 5:03 PM
To: Ingwersen, Wesley <ingwersen.wesley@...>; main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: 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
############################


Re: Thinking about how best to leverage our work so far

Andreas Ciroth
 

Dear Chris and all,

thank you for raising these points, I have the impression this is an important discussion for bonsai. I need to say that I was not so active in bonsai because in my view it suffers from two things:

  • The dogma of free data
  • The name

 

The name is easier, “bonsai” is (again in my view) a procedure to basically torture a tree to prevent that it becomes as large as it should become but keep it in a micro state throughout its life. I did not really see the link to the idea that we want to pursue (of course, “cdlci” is also not too catchy and remembers me more of a Korean microprocessor name).

 

The dogma is more difficult. I believe that there is a supply chain for LCA models, which goes from data, to tools, and models; and I think these datasets need to be prepared with care and should be important for decision making thus have value. I never understood why it makes sense to declare that one step in the supply chain must be free of costs; it is as if saying one step in an LCA must be emission free, while for the rest environmental impacts can be as they are. I see that this concept is attractive for those who provide expensive software tools (sorry Eric..) but for end users, the overall package, the full life cycle costs if you want, count more. Further, if one step in the supply chain is free, it is more difficult to work on it more than for fun. I think this is especially true for dataset development, which is more “scattered” than tool development. You need more insight in different branches and regions, while for software development, it is ok to develop one generic tool that can calculate and model all kinds of products. For openLCA, we manage to provide it for free but also because we have projects paying us for further development, including our contributions to the various initiatives Chris has cited (the lciaformatter, the reference data, of course the openLCA ontology, and we even provided training to the people who are now developing the new database in Canada).

 

I am not too aware of many reasonable initiatives for working with data in a smart way (not the micromanagement-heavy, manual work with claimed correctness and claimed consistency in the remodeling project and in PEF, e.g.). And I believe that there are not too many persons needed to really develop something meaningful. Maybe for bonsai an important role could be a governor and middle-man, by developing and promoting a code of practice for smart data development, focusing on the approach and not on the fact that data must be free. For the approach, it could be updates, maintenance, how data is collected, that it is all about modeling and that there is not absolute truth, interoperability, verifiability & transparency, doing it not as stupid as PEF, asf. Even, maybe, the current work in bonsai can be maintained and then be one example of applying the bonsai rules, and other initiatives could be “certified”.

 

What do you think?

 

All the best,

Andreas

 

Von: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Massimo Pizzol
Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2019 09:16
An: main@bonsai.groups.io
Betreff: Re: [bonsai] Thinking about how best to leverage our work so far

 

My impression is that right now we are still in a very pilot stage, due to various reasons: volunteer work, relatively recent initiative, few meetings, very decentralized and slow decision making structure… (and I don’t mean to say these are bad things, on the contrary). We are trying to get stuff to work. So naturally we lack a final product and the documentation is still chaotic. We haven’t yet reached critical mass yet, but once this happens then “translating our knowledge base into material that is easy for other to understand, benefit from, and use” will be easier - I believe. The other groups in this space seems to be in a more advanced stage. So perhaps instead of waiting to be invited we should be the ones inviting others to our hackathons, probably we have much to learn from their experiences.

 

Massimo

 

 

From: <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Eric Mieras via Groups.Io" <mieras@...>
Reply-To: "main@bonsai.groups.io" <main@bonsai.groups.io>
Date: Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 22.27
To: "main@bonsai.groups.io" <main@bonsai.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Thinking about how best to leverage our work so far

 

Hi Chris,

 

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

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

Telefon: +41 56 310 5787

############################

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Re: Thinking about how best to leverage our work so far

Massimo Pizzol
 

My impression is that right now we are still in a very pilot stage, due to various reasons: volunteer work, relatively recent initiative, few meetings, very decentralized and slow decision making structure… (and I don’t mean to say these are bad things, on the contrary). We are trying to get stuff to work. So naturally we lack a final product and the documentation is still chaotic. We haven’t yet reached critical mass yet, but once this happens then “translating our knowledge base into material that is easy for other to understand, benefit from, and use” will be easier - I believe. The other groups in this space seems to be in a more advanced stage. So perhaps instead of waiting to be invited we should be the ones inviting others to our hackathons, probably we have much to learn from their experiences.

 

Massimo

 

 

From: <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Eric Mieras via Groups.Io" <mieras@...>
Reply-To: "main@bonsai.groups.io" <main@bonsai.groups.io>
Date: Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 22.27
To: "main@bonsai.groups.io" <main@bonsai.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [bonsai] Thinking about how best to leverage our work so far

 

Hi Chris,

 

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

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

Telefon: +41 56 310 5787

############################

 

 

 

 

 

 


Re: Thinking about how best to leverage our work so far

Eric Mieras
 

Hi Chris,

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
############################


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
############################


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
############################