Ontology: def of "renewable" needs a rework

[stap-m]

Description of the issue

From PR #739:

Current def: _Renewable is an origin of portions of matter that replenish on a human time scale._
Def of origin: _The origin is a quality that indicates where something comes from (its source)._

The use case for has origin renewable usually is to indicate which energy carriers are renewable energy carriers, such as air, photon, rock, water, biomass.
The def of renewable fits for biomass, bur not really for the other examples.

Task: Develop a suitable definition for renewable, that fits other renewable energy carriers as well.
Question: Is the restriction to portion of matter useful?

State of discussion (21-07-28)

Results so far:

• definition of origin: _Origin is a quality that indicates where a portion of matter or energy comes from (its source)._
• Adding an editor note to origin: _Origin is not used to describe the output of a process. In such case, we recommend the relation "has physical output"._
• What things can have an origin in general?
  
  
  
  • options:
  
  
  • currently: portion of matter
  
  
  • energy and portion of matter (agreed upon option)
  
  
  • energy and fuel
  
  
  • portion of matter vs. fuel:
  
  
  • fuel would exclude rock and others which don't fit the definition of renewable
  
  
  • portion of matter would include relevant use cases for other origins, e.g., anthropogenic for emissions
  
  
  • energy vs. no energy:
  
  
  • being able to assign a renewable origin to an energy directly is practical
  
  

• suggested definition of renewable: _Renewable is an origin of an energy carrier or energy that indicates that the energy carrier replenishes on a human time scale or isn't consumed when the respective energy is used._

  Open questions:

• water problem: pumped water can be pumped using electricity of a coal power planned, thus making pumped water not renewable for some cases

  • possible solution: only use has origin some renewable for unambiguous cases
  • create parallel classes pumped water and renewable pumped water
• energy problem: qualities like energy can't be related to other qualities like renewable via has origin
• classification of renewable: is renewable really an origin? It makes statements about the future (how something will get renewed), not about the past (where something came from)

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

[stap-m]

From a modellers perspective it would be useful that energy could also have an origin directly, athough we defined it as _a quality of matter_.

[l-emele]

The relation has origin currently has the domain energy or 'portion of matter'. After the latest verbal discussion and some thoughs on hydro-related questions I am asking myself, whether we should limit the domain to energy or 'fuel'.

It is irrelevant whether rock renews itself or not, what is really renewed is the thermal energy carried by rock. And for the hydro-related classes attributing water the renewable origin causes some at least to me some trouble when thinking of pumped-storage hydroelectricity.

[sfluegel05]

If the term renewable is used for energies, we should make it applicable to energies (and do the same for other origins).
For a new definition of renewable this might be helpful source:

Renewable energy is energy that is generated from natural processes that are continuously replenished.

This emphasizes that the origin of something is related to the process which generated it. For renewable this could mean _Renewable is an origin of a portion of mater or energy that is the output of a natural process that is continuously replenished._

The relation has origin currently has the domain energy or 'portion of matter'. After the latest verbal discussion and some thoughs on hydro-related questions I am asking myself, whether we should limit the domain to energy or 'fuel'.

I agree that renewable does not really work for rock or water. But other origins might still be useful for non-fuels. E.g. biogenic for certain instances of air pollutant or anthropogenic for artificial object (which would mean that we extend the range of has origin to material entity). That doesn't mean we need to add origins to everything, but I think it would be a good option to have.

[stap-m]

@l-emele @han-f do you think it could be relevant to declare the origin of e.g. emissions? I think the OEO stays more flexible when allowing the relation has origin to any portion of matter and energies.

The class origin itself isn't resticted btw. Maybe this should be adjusted alongside...

[han-f]

Without thinking too much about it, personally it seems to come naturally to have the possibility to attach an origin to many things. Would we then be able to declare an emission to be originating from electricity production for example, or from road transportation (a kind of sectoral origin)?

If yes and we do not currently have this implemented yet in another way: I would definitely be in favour to also declare origins of emissions as this is helpful in reporting contexts. For example, European Member States need to report emission projections by sector according to table 1a in Annex XXXV: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R1208&from=EN
Thus they also utilise models and tools that allow for such a depiction. This then ties in with the sector division common reporting format.

Sidenote:
In the linked regulation the tables are called _‘common reporting table’, or ‘CRT’ which means a table for information on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks included in AnnexII to Decision 24/CP19 of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Decision 24/CP19);_, and I am not 100 % sure they match spot on with the common reporting format, but they look very much so and may slightly differ in their depth.

[l-emele]

Without thinking too much about it, personally it seems to come naturally to have the possibility to attach an origin to many things. Would we then be able to declare an emission to be originating from electricity production for example, or from road transportation (a kind of sectoral origin)?

We already have a relation describing this, which is has output resp. output of.

I understand the concept of origin differently: Its the source of something without being the output of an other process we describe in the ontology.

[han-f]

Ah ok, that both makes sense.

[stap-m]

But we have the subclass of origin anthropogenic, which is quite suitable for emissions. I don't see a conflict with the output of here.

Can we agree to stay with the current def of origin? _The origin is a quality that indicates where something comes from (its source)._

[l-emele]

@han-f : What exactly do you mean by emission, btw? In our current structure, we distinguish between emission (a process), greenhouse gas (a portion of matter) and emission value (process attribute). What you want to describe is probably the origin of the gases and not of the emission process. For some of the gases we already have included anthropogenic origins namely for nitrogen trifluoride, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbon and perfluorocarbon.

[han-f]

@han-f : What exactly do you mean by emission, btw? In our current structure, we distinguish between emission (a process), greenhouse gas (a portion of matter) and emission value (process attribute). What you want to describe is probably the origin of the gases and not of the emission process. For some of the gases we already have included anthropogenic origins namely for nitrogen trifluoride, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbon and perfluorocarbon.

Thanks for this explanation and yes, taking this into account the origin would refer to the gases.

[stap-m]

I understand the concept of origin differently: Its the source of something without being the output of an other process we describe in the ontology.

What about
1) _Origin is a quality that indicates where a portion of matter or energy comes from (its source)._
2) Adding an editor note to origin like: _Origin is not used to sedcribe the output of a process. Here, the relation "has physical output" is recommended._

[han-f]

I like your suggestion of an editor note - repeated here with typo corrected and a slightly adapted second sentence:
_Origin is not used to describe the output of a process. In such a case, we recommend to use the relation "has physical output" ._

[stap-m]

@l-emele do you agree, too?

[l-emele]

I agree with the definition proposal and the editor note.

[stap-m]

Great. What about smth like this for renewable: _Renewable is an origin of an energy carrier or energy that indicates that the energy carrier replenishes on a human time scale or isn't consumed when the respective energy is used._ ?

[l-emele]

I think, I agree too this definition of renewable. But I still have a small doubt because of the water problem.

The class water has currently the axiom has origin some renewable but for the subclass pumped water this axiom is not necessarily true. I cannot imagine a use case where water, that was pumped into a reservoir using electricity generated by a coal power plant would be considered as renewable.

My impression is, solving the water problem first might lead to an even better definition of renewable.

[stap-m]

Methane is probably a similar case. Both _can_ have origin renewable, but not necessarily.
My first idea is to create parallel classes methane and renewable methane / pumped water and renewable pumped water? But in the case of water, the origin is inherited. Thus, this won't work. Any good ideas @sfluegel05 ?

[sfluegel05]

I guess the easiest solution would be to not use any axioms has origin some renewable, if some instances of the class are not renewable. So we would only use renewable for cases which are unambiguous, like biofuel.

Another thought: Is renewable really an origin? An origin _indicates where something comes from_, but the definition of renewable doesn't make a statement about the past, but about the future: _the energy carrier replenishes on a human time scale._

[sfluegel05]

Also, I'm afraid we have to rethink the origin-energy-relation.
Our current suggestions all include that an energy can have an origin. However, the relation has origin is a subproperty of has quality, which is defined as _a relation between an independent continuant (the bearer) and a quality, in which the quality specifically depends on the bearer for its existence_
Unfortunately, energy (just like origin) is a quality and not an independent continuant. We could

1. make energy an independent continuant (which would probably be a misclassification, since energy depends on an energy carrier and thus is not independent)
2. apply origin only to material entities, i.e. the energy carriers

[l-emele]

We could

1. make `energy` an independent continuant (which would probably be a misclassification, since energy depends on an energy carrier and thus is not independent)

2. apply `origin` only to material entities, i.e. the energy carriers

Of these two options I would prefer the second one. A misclassification of the very important class as energy should be avoided.