Ontology: add solar xxxx energy transformation

[stap-m]

Description of the issue

From the oeo-dev-meeting on energy subclasses on 2021-02-01

A subprocess of solar energy transformation is the process that converts solar energy into electrical energy. It has two partical process: a solar thermal energy transformation and a steam power process (see #659).

Example: CSP

Ideas of solution

Def: _solar xxxx energy transformation is a solar energy transformation that converts solar energy into electrical energy. It has two partical process: a solar thermal energy transformation and a steam power process._
We need to find a good lable here!

Workflow checklist

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

I am aware that

• [ ] every entry in the ontology should have a definition
• [ ] classes should arise from concepts rather than from words

[Vera-IER]

I have two ideas:
combined heat and power solar energy transformation (with the alternative term CHP solar enrgy transformation)
or
solar cogeneration energy transformation

[l-emele]

In my understanding cogeneration / CHP is a process where the energy outputs are both electrical energy and thermal energy. That is not what we've defined here.

[l-emele]

We should solve #659 first. Solving that issue would give us the proper substitute for xxxx.

[l-emele]

In #659/#691 we agreed on steam-electric process. So we could label our class here something like solar-steam-electric process.

[l-emele]

Do we agree on this label? Then we can implement this issue.

[l-emele]

I started implementing. I added the axiom ('has part' some 'solar thermal energy transformation') and ('has part' some 'solar-steam-electric process') as that follows the definition. Should we make this class an equivalent class to this axiom?

@OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology : What do you think? I still struggle when to use an equivalent class and when it is not necessary.

[l-emele]

And any objections against adding has input some solar energy to the parent class solar energy transformation? We somehow missed that in #672 but can fix it here.

[sfluegel05]

Should we make this class an equivalent class to this axiom?

I'm not sure about that. That would mean that every process that transforms solar energy into thermal energy and thermal energy into electrical energy is automatically a solar-steam-electric process. Could you also image a process which contains both the solar thermal energy transformation as well as the steam-electric process but is not a solar-steam-electric process (maybe by further transforming the electrical energy into another energy form)?

[l-emele]

Could you also image a process which contains both the solar thermal energy transformation as well as the steam-electric process but is not a solar-steam-electric process

For me, every process that consists of an solar thermal energy transformation and an steam-electric process is solar-steam-electric process.

That would mean that every process that transforms solar energy into thermal energy and thermal energy into electrical energy is automatically a solar-steam-electric process.

This new process would have solar-steam-electric process as part.

[sfluegel05]

For me, every process that consists of an solar thermal energy transformation and an steam-electric process is solar-steam-electric process.

In that case we should make it an equivalent class.

[l-emele]

Great!

@stap-m @Vera-IER : If you agree with this equivalence, I'll implement it as equivalent class.

[stap-m]

I agree

[Vera-IER]

I agree as well