`primary energy carrier disposition` is not used

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

We have the primary energy carrier disposition (Definition: Primary energy carrier disposition is an energy carrier disposition of material entities that are extracted directly from natural resources or that are natural energy flows.), but it is not used for classes like hard coal or natural gas and thus these classes are not inferred as subclasses of primary energy carrier.

Ideas of solution

If you already have ideas for the solution describe them 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

[l-emele]

I identified the following classes where I am very sure that should get the axiom 'has disposition' some 'primary energy carrier disposition':

• natural gas
• crude oil
• coal
• peat

The classes need discussion:

• air
• water
• nuclear fuel

[l-emele]

As from yesterdays discussion in the OEKG meeting there was already an agreement on the first group I'll implement these immediately. The second group we can discuss later.

[l-emele]

In PR #1033 came the idea to give biomass the primary energy carrier disposition. This is a bit complicated, as biomass currently neither has an axiom has energy carrier disposition nor an axiom has fuel role. At least the latter one has we distinguish between biomass and biofuel. Only the later one has a fuel role. If we give now biomass the axiom primary energy carrier disposition, then basically say, that there might exist some biomass which is an energy carrier, but cannot be combusted. Do we want this?

[l-emele]

The current state of this issue is that all these fuels have the primary energy carrier disposition:

Unfortunately, there was no reaction on my last question regarding biomass/biofuel. As this issue seems in its current state neither urgent nor near a solution for air, water, nuclear fuel and biomass/biofuel I postpone this issue to a later release.

[stap-m]

If we give now biomass the axiom primary energy carrier disposition, then basically say, that there might exist some biomass which is an energy carrier, but cannot be combusted. Do we want this?

Not "cannot", but "is not". That is why we distinguish between disposition and role. Is there any biomass that cannot be used as a (primary) energy carrier? I'd say, the answer is no. Is there any biomass that is not used as fuel? I'd say, the answer is yes.