[SFS] Improve list of keywords / descriptors

[stap-m]

Description of the issue

The current list of keywords descriptors in the study factsheet template ist a proposal and needs improvement.

Factsheet

Study / Scenario

Field

Keywords, see Documentation

Ideas of solution

Please add keywords that are missing to describe your study / scenario in the list below.
Please comment on whether the keywords are helpful or not, and what your ideas for improvement are.

descriptor	source	factsheet	oeo id/label or issue#
carbon neutrality	ÖI	study	OEO_00360010 (climate neutrality criteria)
negative emissions	ÖI	study	OEO_00000293 (negative emission)
study fulfills a legal obligation (e.g. it is the projection under the MMR or part of the NECP)	ÖI	study	OEO_00020373 (study report due to legal obligation)
Transformation decarbonization pathways	RLI	study	OEO_00010212
Share of renewables	RLI	study	OEO_00140133 (RE-share), redundant to 100% renewables
Flexibility	RLI	study	OEO_00360007 (flexibility)
Efficiency	RLI	study	OEO_00140050 (efficiency value) or OEO_00140049 (energy conversion efficiency)
resilience	oekg	study	OEO_00360015
life cycle analysis	oekg	study	OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology#1551 OEO_00330023 (life cycle assessment)
CO2 emissions	oekg	study	OEO_00260007 (CO2 emission)
Greenhouse gas emissions	oekg	study	OEO_00000199 (greenhouse gas emission)
Reallabor / living lab	oekg	study	tbd
100% renewables	oekg	study	OEO_00140133 (RE-share)
acceptance	oekg	study	OEO_00360000
sufficiency	oekg	study	OEO_00010444
primary energy demand	SIROP	study	OEO_00140146 (energy demand)
final energy demand	SIROP	study	OEO_00140146 (energy demand)
degree of electrifiaction	oekg	study	OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology#1434 OEO_00020254 (electrical energy share)
regionalisation	oekg	study	OEO_00340006
total gross electricity generation	oekg	study	OEO_00240012 (gross electricity generation)
total net electricity generation	oekg	study	OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology#1837
peak electricity generation	oekg	study	OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology#1837
supply grid subclasses	oekg	study	OEO_00360004, OEO_00000143, OEO_00020004, OEO_00020005
grid / infrastructure extension	oekg	study	tbd
sector coupling	oekg	study	OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology#1521
scenario projection comparison	oekg	study	OEO_00360003
model intercomparison study	oekg	study	OEO_00360002
policies and measures	SIROP	study	OEO_00140151 (policy instrument)
senario subclasses	SIROP	scenario	done, see OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology#1329

[christian-rli]

It's not entirely clear to me what the keywords refer to. I found it not straight forward to select the included technologies, i.e. should I select that in the:

• sector
• energy carriers
• energy transformation process
• all of the above

It feels to me like the latter would be correct. Our scenario includes the following technologies: PV, wind, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, heat pump, gas, coal, oil, CHP, electricity, gas, heat. As the non expert user I am, I would expect all of those to be keywords for our study/scenario, but I found it difficult to map them all with clarity and the impression that I need to sort of split them into those categories is an additional factor of confusion for me.

I realize that this is a complex task, but ideally the interface would guide the user to differentiate the categories above or auto-suggestion related fields. Can anyone anyone describe a clear separation to me? Also, how accurate is my impression, that a list like the above mentioned categories should be a part of every scenario description? If it applies, then it may be worth putting some effort in a simple interface.

[stap-m]

It's not entirely clear to me what the keywords refer to.

Our scenario includes the following technologies: PV, wind, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, heat pump, gas, coal, oil, CHP, electricity, gas, heat. As the non expert user I am, I would expect all of those to be keywords for our study/scenario, but I found it difficult to map them all with clarity and the impression that I need to sort of split them into those categories is an additional factor of confusion for me.

Ok, thats an important point. The keywords are meant to add additional information to the factsheets, beyond what is selectable in sectors, energy carriers and energy transformation process.

I realize that this is a complex task, but ideally the interface would guide the user to differentiate the categories above or auto-suggestion related fields. Can anyone anyone describe a clear separation to me?

These categories are currently derived 1:1 from the OEO and I have the feeling that they need a better structuring anyway. Can you give some input here @han-f @l-emele @Ludee ?

EDIT: I opended a separate issue #28 for this discussion.
Please let's focus on the list of keywords in this issue.

[stap-m]

Notes from the SIROP project meeting on 25th of april:

• rename keywords to "descriptors" @adelmemariani since the term keyword is confusing.
• descriptors for studies and scenarios separately, no overlaps (looks redundant, not visually appealing)
• restict descriptors for scenarios to OEO scenario subclasses: refrence scenario, ambitious, proressive, conservative, target, explorative... see Further scenario subclasses ontology#1329 @adelmemariani
• first set of descriptor terms tbd until 5th of may @l-emele @christian-rli @Ludee @u-mueller . @han-f gets a personal deadline: 16th May
• additional to the set of descriptors: autocomplete search bar for (some) OEO terms @adelmemariani

[l-emele]

Here is a short list with further descriptors:

• carbon neutrality
• negative emissions
• scenario fulfills a legal obligation (e.g. it is the projection under the MMR or part of the NECP)

[christian-rli]

For completeness sake, here is the original list. The way I interpret this issue, all suggestions would add to them. If you feel like something needs to be removed, edit this comment and strike through words with double ~ around them and add your name,
like so @christian-rli
Scenario descriptors move into the study descriptors. I am crossing out duplicates here.

Study details:

• resilience
• life cycle analysis
• CO2 emissions
• Greenhouse gas emissions
• Reallabor
• 100% renewables
• acceptance
• sufficiency
• (changes in) demand
• degree of electrifiaction
• regionalisation
• total gross electricity generation
• total net electricity generation
• peak electricity generation

scenarios:

• 100% renewables @christian-rli (duplicate)
• acceptance @christian-rli (duplicate)
• sufficiency @christian-rli (duplicate)
• negative emissionen
• grid restrictions
• grid / infrastructure extension

[christian-rli]

I'm not a modeller, but I feel some relevant missing information are types of categorization that I keep hearing, but that I don't seem to find in the Factsheets so far:

• perfect foresight
• linear optimization
• mixed integer optimization

[l-emele]

I'm not a modeller, but I feel some relevant missing information are types of categorization that I keep hearing, but that I don't seem to find in the Factsheets so far:

• perfect foresight
• linear optimization
• mixed integer optimization

Do these really belong in the scenario factsheets? Looks more like things for the model factsheets.

[christian-rli]

Do these really belong in the scenario factsheets? Looks more like things for the model factsheets.

Good point, you're probably right. However, to be nitpicking, if I understand correctly, we're also talking about study factsheets, so one level above scenarios (but including those with a separate list of keys). I guess I felt that this warranted more context, but I agree that this is better located in the model factsheets.

I asked a modeler at the institute to add things to the current list. Without being given too much context, here are her suggestions:

• Transformation Pathways
• Share of renewables
• Flexibility
• Efficiency

[stap-m]

• scenario fulfills a legal obligation (e.g. it is the projection under the MMR or part of the NECP)

@l-emele this sounds like a descriptor to a scenario, not a study. Right? For scenario descriptors, we agreed to only allow scenario subclasses. Can this be "translated" into a scenario subclass?

While searching the suggested descriptor terms in the OEO, I found the following terms that might suit as well. Can you please give feedback @l-emele @christian-rli @han-f @Ludee @u-mueller Thanks!

• decarbonisation pathway
• energy import / export
• mobility
• CCS
• model comparison
• sensitivity analysis

[stap-m]

I added the existing and newly suggested descriptors to the table above. Thus, we can keep overview of what we have already, and what not. Once, we agreed on a final-for-now list in this issue, I'll transfer the table to the OEO repo.

[l-emele]

• scenario fulfills a legal obligation (e.g. it is the projection under the MMR or part of the NECP)

@l-emele this sounds like a descriptor to a scenario, not a study. Right? For scenario descriptors, we agreed to only allow scenario subclasses. Can this be "translated" into a scenario subclass?

Ok, then what about: study (report) fulfills a legal obligation?

• CSS

What is CSS?

• sensitivity analysis

Why do we need this as a descriptor when it is already a part of the scenario information?

[stap-m]

Sorry, typo. CCS

Why do we need this as a descriptor when it is already a part of the scenario information?

What do you mean by "scenario information"?

[l-emele]

Why do we need this as a descriptor when it is already a part of the scenario information?

What do you mean by "scenario information"?

As part of the scenario part of the factsheets it was foreseen to enter information on sensitivity analyses. So I don't think we should additionally have sensitivity analysis as descriptor.

[l-emele]

All of the following are processes that are modelled:

• negative emissions
• CO2 emissions
• Greenhouse gas emissions
• (changes in) demand
• energy import / export
• CCS

Maybe we need not only a selection field for energy transformation processes but also a field for something like: other processes modelled.

[han-f]

Jumping into this with some delay, I am not really sure I am up to speed. From an outsiders perspective I think it would be helpful for readers of factsheets to have some very broad keywords/tags that help them understand the overall context of a study / scenario. I was under the impression that this was, what the original "keywords" wanted to do.

Now we moved to a more detailed approach with connection to OEO. This is in my eyes helpful because it provides the mapping to the OEO and thus consistency, but at the same time it limits users to what is available in the OEO.

Would it maybe make sense to add these descriptors and additionally also allow users to provide their own set of (freely input) keywords to their factsheets? This may add flexibility. If the input field for such freely input keywords would also have the possibility to show already existing user-generated keywords, this may possibly help to limit the inputs as new users may orient themselves on what is already there and fits their context, too.

[stap-m]

Would it maybe make sense to add these descriptors and additionally also allow users to provide their own set of (freely input) keywords to their factsheets? This may add flexibility. If the input field for such freely input keywords would also have the possibility to show already existing user-generated keywords, this may possibly help to limit the inputs as new users may orient themselves on what is already there and fits their context, too.

Thanks for the input @han-f We discussed this during the project meeting. ovgu is quite reluctant regarding freetext entries. In the end we found that there is still the abstract field for freetext description where these terms could occur.
If we see that this is not enough, we can still improve the descriptors at a later state.
Is this a solution that you can go with?

[l-emele]

I discussed this topic on friday bilaterally with @u-mueller. We came to the conclusion, that currently on of the most important points, the research question(s) of the study and the scenarios, of the scenario are not properly depicted in the OEKG. I mention this here, because if we interpret the keywords as additional descriptors, then we need to find a way to depict the research question with ontology terms.

[stap-m]

Why do we need this as a descriptor when it is already a part of the scenario information?

What do you mean by "scenario information"?

As part of the scenario part of the factsheets it was foreseen to enter information on sensitivity analyses. So I don't think we should additionally have sensitivity analysis as descriptor.

I am not aware that we've included it yet. If I am wrong please indicate where...
The plan is, that the scenario part will just have the scenario subclasses as selectable options.

[stap-m]

@christian-rli @l-emele @u-mueller @han-f Thanks for checking. Is the list above ok for you for a first version? If yes, we have to open respective OEO issues for further development.

[christian-rli]

The above list looks like a good first version to me. I approve :)

[u-mueller]

Shall we also add

• sector coupling
• scenario comparison
• network development

?

[stap-m]

network development

Is that the same as grid exteansion, see table?

[u-mueller]

Is that the same as grid exteansion, see table?

Yes, sorry, it is more or less the same, maybe we can use network development and also grid expansion as alternative labels.

[stap-m]

Ok, I updated the table above.
Feel free to open issues in the oeo repo for the missing terms and link them above.

[stap-m]

@han-f @l-emele The descriptor "study fulfills a legal obligation (e.g. it is the projection under the MMR or part of the NECP)" came from you. Would a solution be to add a scenario subclass instead of a study descriptor, e.g. legal obligation scenario?

[stap-m]

@christian-rli @chrwm the descriptor "Transformation Pathways" came from RLI. Is decarbonisation pathway a feasible alternative, or do you want to include a separate concept?

[l-emele]

@han-f @l-emele The descriptor "study fulfills a legal obligation (e.g. it is the projection under the MMR or part of the NECP)" came from you. Would a solution be to add a scenario subclass instead of a study descriptor, e.g. legal obligation scenario?

I would rather see this as a subclass of study report. E.g. the projections reports are study reports that contain scenarios and fulfil legal obligations.

[christian-rli]

@christian-rli @chrwm the descriptor "Transformation Pathways" came from RLI. Is decarbonisation pathway a feasible alternative, or do you want to include a separate concept?

Thank you for looking this up @stap-m ! I would consider the current definition of decarbonisation pathway equivalent, so we don't need a new concept.

[han-f]

@han-f @l-emele The descriptor "study fulfills a legal obligation (e.g. it is the projection under the MMR or part of the NECP)" came from you. Would a solution be to add a scenario subclass instead of a study descriptor, e.g. legal obligation scenario?

I would rather see this as a subclass of study report. E.g. the projections reports are study reports that contain scenarios and fulfil legal obligations.

I agree with @l-emele

[jh-RLI]

Is it possible to add an oekg relationship like "is_descriptor"? This would help me to retrieve all current descriptors.

As it is currently, I think I need to keep a static list of all descriptors as defined in the table above. If the list changes, we have to update the list manually. This is not what we want to have. It would be better if we could "register" a new descriptor in the oekg / oeo and then provide a code that retrieves all descriptors.

Or am i missing something?

@adelmemariani @l-emele @stap-m

[l-emele]

How are the descriptors currently stored in the OEKG?

[jh-RLI]

As far as i can see they are only stored in the oekg once they have been selected by the user during scenario bundle creation.

descriptor = URIRef(descriptor["class"])
bundle.add(
    (scenario_URI, OEO["has_scenario_descriptor"], descriptor)
)

The list of the availabe descriptors itself is currently hardcoded like this:

https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/oeplatform/blob/9cc259248fa2708ed5ee3f8a7acfeab892499e20/factsheet/frontend/src/components/factsheet.js#L272-L311

[jh-RLI]

Hm okay, since the code isnt clear without some further investigation im not sure if the study factsheet (=scenario bundle) descriptor will be saved this way because the code mentions the scenario insted of the scneario bundle ID. I will have another look at it.

[jh-RLI]

There it is, its saved with relation to the scenario bundle as I thought once the user selects & saves it:

bundle.add((study_URI, OEO["has_study_keyword"], Literal(keyword)))

[l-emele]

We already had for a different use case to include oekg specific annotations (not relations) in the oeo, see OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology#1529. We might use that.

[jh-RLI]

Sound intresting to make this more clear: then there would be an annotation like OEO_00020005:"study_factsheet_descriptor=true"? This would definately help to automatically create a list of all availabe descriptors from the oeo.

[l-emele]

What I head in mind with my latest proposal in the OEO issue would lead to:

Class: OEO_00020009
    Annotations: 
        oekg_annotation "descriptor"

[jh-RLI]

That sounds very good, as long as all "descriptors" are "study descriptors". I don't know if there are any other use cases for descriptors annotations in the oeo (I'm not sure what might apply here e.g. "scenario descriptors").