implement target fulfillment for scenarios

[Ludee]

Add to scenario factsheets:

Parameter:

• Name of target
• Description of target
• Was fulfilled

[l-emele]

For the description of scenarios the term "political goal" or "climate goal" would be quite important. For example a 90 % greenhouse gas reduction goal is a typical input parameter for modelling. I think this isn't a political instrument or measure. Then the policy instrument could be defined as: A policy instrument is a activity by the government that intends to realize the political goal.
I would already be happy with the terms political goal and policiy instrument to describe scenario assumptions.

Originally posted by @Vera-IER in #444 (comment)

[Vera-IER]

I just saw in the OEO that we have the classes economic scenario, climate scenario, emission scenario and energy scenario. So I think if we have these classes, we don't actually need "political goal" or "name of target". For example a greenhouse gas reduction target can also be described with the emission scenario.
So I think the only thing which we could do is to relate the scenario classes to the classes name and description. In the OEO I foud written name and data descriptor.

I don't think that we need a label "was fullfilled", thats not a model input or output, it's rather a interpretation of the results.

[l-emele]

But there is no def of politcal measure in FIBO. They have definitions of goal and objective, which could be helpful:
goal: a desired result that a person, organization or system envisions or plans, or to which it commits, in order to achieve a desired state (https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/ontology/FND/GoalsAndObjectives/Goals/Goal)
objective: short-term, quantitative, measurable result that a person, organization, or system seeks to attain in order to achieve its long-term goals (https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/ontology/FND/GoalsAndObjectives/Objectives/Objective)

Originally posted by @Vera-IER in #444 (comment)

[han-f]

I would like to throw in here that we may also want to distinguish between 'target' and 'goal'. In the European legislative context a 'target' is something that is legally binding, while a 'goal' is a desired result an entity aims at. Failing to meet the goal won't have any legislative consequences.

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/regulation_en: In October 2014, EU leaders set a binding economy-wide domestic emission reductions target of at least 40% by 2030 compared to 1990. They specified that sectors of the economy not covered by the EU ETS must reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 compared to 2005 as their contribution to the overall target. The Effort Sharing Regulation translates this commitment into binding annual greenhouse gas emission targets for each Member State for the period 2021–2030, based on the principles of fairness, cost-effectiveness and environmental integrity.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_335: With the European Climate Law the Commission proposes a legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The EU Institutions and the Member States are collectively bound to take the necessary measures at EU and national level to meet the target.

[Vera-IER]

Ok, important point. Should we go on with defining target and goal and leave the objective term out?

[han-f]

Ok, important point. Should we go on with defining target and goal and leave the objective term out?

Target and goal: I think this is a good idea.
And: could objective not be a synonym of goal?

[Vera-IER]

Objective and goals are apparently no synonyms:
http://www.investorwords.com/article/goals-vs-objectives.html
To sum it up, a goal is about the big picture and the objective is a concrete step to reach the goal.

Do we need the concept of objective for describing political measures or can we leave it out?

[l-emele]

Objective and goals are apparently no synonyms:
http://www.investorwords.com/article/goals-vs-objectives.html
To sum it up, a goal is about the big picture and the objective is a concrete step to reach the goal.

These definitions are from a business context, but we are talking here about the context in politics.

[Vera-IER]

In a political context I found similar definitions (source):

Goals are general guidelines that explain what you want to achieve in your community. They are usually long-term and represent global visions such as “protect public health and safety.”

Objectives define strategies or implementationsteps to attain the identified goals. Unlike goals, objectives are specific, measurable, and have a defined completion date. They are more specific and outline the “who, what, when, where, and how” of reaching the goals.

[Vera-IER]

When we think of use cases in our domain, the terms goal and target are mostly used. For example like climate goal or 95 % CO2 mitigation target. So I think the term objective is not needed in the OEO.

[l-emele]

We need the concept(s) of goal/target/objective. Which label the concept will have in the end is secondary.

[Vera-IER]

There is the def of goal of the FIBO we could use:

goal: a desired result that a person, organization or system envisions or plans, or to which it commits, in order to achieve a desired state (https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/ontology/FND/GoalsAndObjectives/Goals/Goal)

What could be a suitable parent class?

[sfluegel05]

In this comment, @akleinau suggested role (indirectly). Later in the oeo-dev-8.3-meeting, we decided that result doesn't fit as a parent class, but maybe another parent class can be useful, for example desired result.
A desired result is a role of a state where a person or a group of persons wants to reach that state.

The other option would be to use role as a direct subclass, so A goal is a role of a desired state that a person, organization or system envisions or plans, or to which it commits, in order to achieve this state.

If we only implement one of the concepts, the direct option would probably be better.

[Vera-IER]

I prefer to add just one concept of goal, so that we can use role as parent class.

[sfluegel05]

In that case we have a concept goal (A goal is a role of a desired state that a person, organization or system envisions or plans, or to which it commits, in order to achieve this state.)

Do we need anything else for this issue?

[stap-m]

Is a desired state really an independent continuant that serves as bearer? Why not classify it as generically dependent continuant?

[sfluegel05]

That's a good point. The desired state can't be the bearer, because a specifically dependent continuant existentially depends on its bearer. But a goal can (and in most cases does) exist without the existence of the desired state.

I think the bearer intended here is the person, organization or system from our definition. If I (a person) have the goal to eat a pizza, this goal specifically depends on me, because (1) the goal ceases to exist if I die, making its dependence existential and (2) if you want to eat a pizza, that goal is not the same goal (although there are similarities between our goals), making the goal specifically dependent.

[Vera-IER]

From OEO dev meeting 16:
we can implement two things:
goal description: A goal description is an information content entity that contains statements about a desired future state of a system that a person or organisation envisions or plans, or to which it commits.

We agreed on (re)including 'written name' from IAO.

@sfluegel05 Could you reinclude that term please? (I don't know how to do that).

We still need to discuss if a concept target description is needed. If yes we could use the definition of goal description and include the legally binding aspect.

[sfluegel05]

I'm a bit confused what was actually decided in dev meeting 16. Vera's comment suggests that we only need to decide on a concept target description, but based on the protocol it looks like we need to discuss about goal, target and objective.

For goal, we have this suggestion:
A goal is a role of a desired state that a person, organization, scenario or system envisions or plans, or to which it commits, in order to achieve this state.
The problem here was: we agree on the definition, but we don't have the concept of a state / quality of a system

For target and objective we have the following ideas:

• target is legally binding, goal is only a desired result (in the European legislative context)
• objectives are specific steps to reach a goal, goals are general guidelines
• add a parent class to bracket all three terms together

The open question here: Do we need them?

[sfluegel05]

My suggestion: Use the definition of goal without further specifying the state. I think this is okay, because (A) it is intuitively clear what a state is and (B) the parent class, role, uses a similar approach by referring to "special circumstances" and a "physical make-up" of the bearer without defining them as their own classes.
Also, we can leave out target and objective, since we didn't come up with a use case over the last months. We can still come back to them if they are needed.

[Vera-IER]

I also read the protocol, it's a bit confusing to understand now after some time. We have the concept of goal description already implemented. I think this is already sufficient, then we don't need goal. We couldn't really decide if target description is needed or not, but the definition would be quite clear, so why not including it.
Suggestion: A target description is an information content entity that contains statements about a desired future state of a system that a person or organisation commits to in a legally binding way.