include subclasses of energy transformation

[Vera-IER]

Description of the issue

We need some subclasses of "energy transformation". @stap-m deleted the existing subclasses of "energy production" (which is now "energy transformation"), see issue #77. We thought it would be good to discuss the subclasses from scratch and maybe take some old definitions.

Ideas of solution

I would define the subclass processes of energy transformation as a transformation process from the primary energy source X into a secondary energy form (electricity, heat or electricity and heat).

I saw that in the OEO under continuant --> energy: there are some primary energy sources and there are also the secondary energy forms mixed togehter. I would separate them and complete the list (but that's maybe an issue by itsself).

For the subclasses of energy transformation process I would inlude:

• photovoltaik plant: Transforms the primary energy source solar power into electrical energy. (+old def)
• solar heat plant: Transforms the primary energy source solar power into heat. (+...)
• Concentrated solar power plant: Transforms the primary energy source solar power into electricity (and heat) (+...).
• wind onshore plant: ...
• wind offshore plant: ...
• hydro power plant:...
• tidal energy power plant
• biogas power plant
• solid biomass power plant
• geothermal power plant
• coal power plant
• lignite power plant
• natural gas power plant
• mineral oil power plant
• nuclear power plant
• renewable waste power plant
• non renewable waste power pant

I hope I didn't forget any type of power plant...

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
• I added this issue to the Project 'Issues'. If suitable, I add it to further Projects.
• 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

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

I would define the subclass processes of energy transformation as a transformation process from the primary energy source X into a secondary energy form (electricity, heat or electricity and heat).

There are also SE→ SE transformations (all the Power-to-X stuff). So don't limit this to PE → SE.

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

For the subclasses of energy transformation process I would inlude:

• photovoltaik plant
  […]

Shouldn't processes be subclasses of energy transformation process (e.g., something like "solar radiation to electricity transformation process") which are in turn realised in all kinds of power plants (e.g., photovoltaic plant)?

[l-emele]

The power plants and power generating units already have quite a detailed structure as subclasses of artificial object? Why do you consider breaking this structure and changing power plants from artificial objects to processes?

[Vera-IER]

From an energy model point of view we need both. We need the the power plants as artificial objects to descripe for example the stock of power plants, but we need also the energy transformation as a process, where we could for example describe the efficiency of the energy transformation. The sub classes of the power plants as artificial objects should be equal to the energy transformation ones.

[l-emele]

So what you intend is basically what we had before with the energy technologies. We had already a lot of discussions on this, e.g. #86 #136 and #173.

Efficiency and other quantities could also be seen as properties of the power plants. We just did this with capacities #320 #391.

[Vera-IER]

Yes I would take the same subclasses as those which you already discussed for the power plants.

Yes true efficiency was a bad example, that could be also a property of a power plant. A better example are emission coefficients. They need to be multiplied with the amount of energy transformed/produced and can't be properties of power plants, but could be properties of energy transformation processes.

I remember that we also talked about including energy production. Maybe its also better to call that energy transformation?

[l-emele]

I remember that we also talked about including energy production. Maybe its also better to call that energy transformation?

We already have a class energy transformation: Energy transformation is a process in which one ore more certain types of energy as input result in certain types of energy as output. energy production could be subclass of energy transformation, i.e. that energy transformation where primary energy (carriers) come from.

(Related to #390.)

[stap-m]

From an energy model point of view we need both. We need the the power plants as artificial objects to descripe for example the stock of power plants, but we need also the energy transformation as a process, where we could for example describe the efficiency of the energy transformation. The sub classes of the power plants as artificial objects should be equal to the energy transformation ones.

Is it really necessary to include (however) all those types of energy transformation? Maybe it is sufficent to include all relevant parts to annotate such a transformation.
For exmple the transformation inside a pv cell: input: radiation --> energy transformation --> output: electrical energy and thermal energy (losses)

[Vera-IER]

Sounds like a good solution. I don't know - is it possible to use the ontology like a puzzle? Can I describe a specific transformation process by combining several parts of the ontology and combine it with an attribute and a value?

@p-kuckertz do you know?

[p-kuckertz]

No, I'm of no use here, sorry. I do not know about this way of utilizing an ontology and I'm no domain expert...

[stap-m]

Is it really necessary to include (however) all those types of energy transformation? Maybe it is sufficent to include all relevant parts to annotate such a transformation. For exmple the transformation inside a pv cell: input: radiation --> energy transformation --> output: electrical energy and thermal energy (losses)

and

Sounds like a good solution. I don't know - is it possible to use the ontology like a puzzle? Can I describe a specific transformation process by combining several parts of the ontology and combine it with an attribute and a value?

@jannahastings @fabianneuhaus can you help here?

[jannahastings]

Sounds like a good solution. I don't know - is it possible to use the ontology like a puzzle? Can I describe a specific transformation process by combining several parts of the ontology and combine it with an attribute and a value?

Sure, this could just be captured in an anonymous class expression in an axiom rather than a named class, we already use such expressions in some cases.

Reading the thread above, I would just like to underscore that power plants and energy transformations need to be separate entities. Of course, the power plant facilitates the energy transformation.

[Vera-IER]

I don't understand it yet. The term "energy transformation" already exists. Can we somehow relate this energy transformation process to all existing power plants in the OEO? If yes, I think we don't need the subclasses of energy transformation?

[stap-m]

Of the existing relations, participates in fits quite well: a relation between a continuant and a process, in which the continuant is somehow involved in the process
E.g.: powerplant participates in some energy transformation
All subclasses of power plant should inherit this property.

[l-emele]

Not only the power plants, but all energy converting devices.

[stap-m]

On the other hand: it is the energy converting device that does the energy transformation process. We should better add it here. Or both.

[Vera-IER]

I like the idea to add this relation to all power plants and energy converting devices. Is the discussion now closed?

[stap-m]

I just took a look into the hierarchy: for consisenty reasons we should either add the relation only to energy converting device or additionally to energy generating unit and power plant (which are related via has part) .

Before we implement, we should wait for #77 and decide: do we relate to energy transformation or to energy generation (or how it will be called)?

[l-emele]

Why has part? A process is not an material object.

[stap-m]

Why has part? A process is not an material object.

power plant --> has part --> power generating unit --> has part --> energy converting device

[l-emele]

That is clear, but I think has part is not the appropriate relation between energy transformation and energy converting device. Or do I understand something wrong?

[Vera-IER]

If I relate it to energy converting device, it is related to heaters, generators, etc. These energy converting devices are not related to energy carriers, so it would not be possible to add attributes for example emission coefficients.
It's only possible to add such attributes if I would relate it to power generating unit. So shall I implement it for power generating unit then?

[Vera-IER]

or for both energy converting device and power generating untit?

[akleinau]

I just took a look into the hierarchy: for consisenty reasons we should either add the relation only to energy converting device or additionally to energy generating unit and power plant (which are related via has part) .

Before we implement, we should wait for #77 and decide: do we relate to energy transformation or to energy generation (or how it will be called)?

@stap-m can you explain your thoughts behind energy converting device? Otherwise I'd go with power generating unit as @Vera-IER proposed

[stap-m]

If I relate it to energy converting device, it is related to heaters, generators, etc. These energy converting devices are not related to energy carriers, so it would not be possible to add attributes for example emission coefficients.
It's only possible to add such attributes if I would relate it to power generating unit. So shall I implement it for power generating unit then?

Sorry, I don't get the connection to energy carrier and emission coefficient here. Could you give an example? I mean, " heater participates in energy transformation " should be a correct relation.

1. We have the existing connection: power generating unit has part some generator
2. We implement: energy converting device participates in energy transformation which hands it down to generator
3. Does power generating unit "inherit" the " participates in energy transformation " from its part generator @akleinau ? If not, we'd need to implement the relation also for power generating unit.

[Vera-IER]

Yes its definitly a correct correlation, when energy converting devices are related to energy transformation.

From my model perspective I need to give attributes like efficiencies or emission coefficients to types of power generating units. A coal power plant has a higer emission coefficient than a gas power plant for example. For example if a have X TWh power generated by a coal power plant, the model calculates the emissions by multiplying the emission coefficient with the generated power. Its related to the combustion process of a power plant (which is different for the different energy carriers), not to the generator.

[akleinau]

Does power generating unit "inherit" the " participates in energy transformation " from its part generator
@akleinau ? If not, we'd need to implement the relation also for power generating unit.

no, it doesn't inherit it

[jannahastings]

We should still think about which is the more primary of these and first capture that (I assume the generator?).

The other then could be, in principle, derived, and although as @akleinau says it will not be inherited automatically, we should still think about whether we need both and if so whether there is a regular relationship between them that can be automatically computed (even if perhaps not within OWL) and if that would help?

[stap-m]

@Vera-IER I completely agree, that for modelling the overall efficiency or emmisions of the power plant is relevant, and not of a single generator. But these are different relations. I don't see a problem to implement such relations for power plant, regardless of this issue.

[Vera-IER]

Did I understand it correctly that we can implement both relations?:
energy converting device participates in energy transformation
power generating unit participates in energy transformation

[akleinau]

this issue has 45 comments. Maybe it is a good idea to define an upper limit like 30 comments, after which an issue should be discussed in a dev meeting as it got too complex?

[Vera-IER]

In the OEO Dev Meeting we agreed to include those relations:
energy converting device participates in energy transformation
power generating unit participates in energy transformation
power plant participates in energy transformation

I will implement it, but I don't know where to put the term tracker item in that case. Because they exist already for energy converting device and so on. Should I include a second term tracker item for theses terms or leave them out?

[l-emele]

Should I include a second term tracker item for theses terms or leave them out?

Please include in the term tracker items the issue #372 and the PR #646 additionally to the issues and PRs already included.