search

OpenEnergyPlatform / ontology

Repository for the Open Energy Ontology (OEO)
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
106 stars 22 forks source link

Improve axioms of phase transitions #1364

Open Alex2448 opened 1 year ago

Alex2448 commented 1 year ago

Description of the issue

As described in Issue#1303, the axioms of phase transitions do not reflect that it is the same type of matter and that only the property changes.

Currently, the axioms implemented are:

Ideas of solution

Workflow checklist

I am aware that

l-emele commented 1 year ago

However, these axioms do not yet reflect that it is the same type of matter. @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology : Any ideas how to axiomatise that it is the same type of matter but only property changes?

Originally posted by @l-emele in https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/issues/1303#issuecomment-1286527119

Alex2448 commented 1 year ago

Also, how can we axiomatise somehow, that absorption and desorption are process inverses? @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology

l-emele commented 1 year ago

However, these axioms do not yet reflect that it is the same type of matter. @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology : Any ideas how to axiomatise that it is the same type of matter but only property changes?

If I understood the discussion in today's OEO dev meeting correctly, we cannot axiomatise things like that in OWL.

Alex2448 commented 1 year ago

@l-emele should I close the issue then?

stap-m commented 1 year ago

However, these axioms do not yet reflect that it is the same type of matter. @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology : Any ideas how to axiomatise that it is the same type of matter but only property changes?

Melting is a phase transition from a solid medium to their liquid state.

At least we could describe it like that: Melting is a phase transition of a portion of matter from a solid state of matter to a liquid state of matter. 'has physical input' some ('portion of matter' and ('has state of matter' value solid)) 'has physical output' some ('portion of matter' and ('has state of matter' value liquid)) That the portion of matter from the input is necessarily the same portion of matter from the output is not depicted, though.

l-emele commented 1 year ago

Those axioms are already implemented.

However, the following question from @Alex2448 is still open:

Also, how can we axiomatise somehow, that absorption and desorption are process inverses? @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology

h-spinde commented 1 year ago

The Relationship Ontology provied a property "negatively correlated with" that has "inversely correlated with" as an alternative label. It's definded as "A relation between entities in which one increases as the other decreases." Maybe this could fit here?

Alternatively, maybe the they can be marked as disjoint classes, adding an explanation in the annotations.

stap-m commented 7 months ago

Those axioms are already implemented.

However, the following question from @Alex2448 is still open:

Also, how can we axiomatise somehow, that absorption and desorption are process inverses? @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology

Is this really relevant for OEO? If not, I'd suggest to close this issue.

l-emele commented 7 months ago

Alternatively, maybe the they can be marked as disjoint classes, adding an explanation in the annotations.

There is already an axiom adsorption DisjointWith: desorption.

Is this really relevant for OEO? If not, I'd suggest to close this issue.

In general, having the possibility to axiomatise process inverses would be nice. We have other processes where it would be nice to axiomatise this inverse relation, e.g. oxidation and reduction or import and export. But I see that it is tricky and it is probably better to have a separate issue for that.