Ontology: classification of wind, solar, heat etc should be discussed

[akleinau]

Description of the issue

For consistency reasons, it would be nicer to speak of either 'WindPower' and 'SolarPower' or else leave '...power' out. For both, we should discuss the classification. Does it make sense, that they are classified differently? Looking at the big picture, wind is also induced by solarPower.

_Originally posted by @stap-m in https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/pull/206_

Ideas of solution

I added "power" for now to Wind, the rest is open for discussion

Workflow checklist

• [ ] I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution
• [x] I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository
• [x] The goal of this ontology is clear to me

I am aware that

• [x] every entry in the ontology should have an annotation
• [x] classes should arise from concepts rather than from words
• [x] class or property names should follow the UpperCamelCase

[akleinau]

WindPower right now is subclass of PortionOfAir, which made sense when it hadn't that "power" suffix but not anymore. I'd move it to Energy where the other Powers are, SolarPower, NuclearPower, HydroPower etc.

Then we have a lot of -power classes under the Energy class so I'd propose to rename them all to -Energy. (I'm assuming power and energy mean the same thing?)

So in short:

• move WindPower to Energy
• rename HydroPower, NuclearPower, Solarpower, WindPower to HydroEnergy, NuclearEnergy, SolarEnergy, WindEnergy

@stap-m, @l-emele what do you think?

[l-emele]

I prefer -energy over -power.

[l-emele]

Regarding wind as portion of air and wind energy I would suggest to keep wind as portion of air and use a relation between wind and wind energy describing that wind energy is the energy of the motion of the air (= wind).

[akleinau]

yes that sounds useful and reminded me that we have to think about the definitions.
WindPower (former Wind) right now has: "Kinetic energy of wind exploited for electricity generation in wind turbines."

[akleinau]

When I look at definitions of wind like "The perceptible natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing from a particular direction." it's rather a process than a PortionOfAir.
So we could implement it as a process: "Wind is a process of air naturally moving."

[stap-m]

I am fine with the suffic -energy instead of -power. And right now we can make WindEnergy a direct subclass of energy.

Power and Energy need reviewd defs and classification. And I'd like to discuss the substructure of energy in a seperate issue.

[akleinau]

should this issue wait for #224?

Or else I'd implement it now which may change the starting situation of #224.

[l-emele]

I'd suggest implementing the changes discussed for wind(energy) and solar(energy) now and hence making #224 easier.