Nuclear origin

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

Similarly to the fossil and renewable origin something like a nuclear origin would be helpful to axiomatise electrical energy from nuclear power plants and also pink hydrogen as proposed in #1490.

Ideas of solution

I think we could neglect for our domain, that there exists uranium and plutonium outside of planet Earth. Therefore I suggest to make nuclear a subclass of geogenic and hence a sister class of fossil.

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

[stap-m]

Sounds good to me. Fossil is an origin of portion of matter only. Energies from energy carriers with fossil origin have conventional origin. Would you allow energies as bearer of nuclear origin anyway?

[l-emele]

I am not decided fully decided... We definitely need nuclear to describe things like nuclear energy or electrical energy from nuclear powerplant. But we might also describe something like hydrogen from electrolysis using nuclear energy (issue #1490).

[stap-m]

A ´nuclear energy´ class should definitely have a conventional origin. Either, we allow more than one origin. Or we could think of two distinct origins:

• nuclear as proposed, for matter and
• nuclear-conventional (or however called) as subclass of conventiohal for energies

[l-emele]

I think, describing something like nuclear energy having a nuclear origin is the important use case. So I propose, that we use the label nuclear for the energy origin.

Further, I thought whether nuclear should be a subclass of geogenic. But geogenic states that the portions of matter or energies that are the result of geological processes. However, that is not true for uranium and plutonium.

So here a first proposal for a definition: Nuclear is a conventional origin that indicates that the energy comes originally from nuclear binding energy.

But if we really want to introduce something like nuclear-geogenic or geogenic-nuclear for the the matter (i.e the uranium, plutonium and so on.) we could do it using the relations: There is a relation between the nuclear energy carrier disposition and the nuclear-geogenic origin. We might solve this with a general class axiom: Everything that has the nuclear energy carrier disposition should also get the the nuclear-geogenic origin (or the other way round).

[l-emele]

@stap-m : Any feedback on my last comment?

[stap-m]

Nuclear is a conventional origin that indicates that the energy comes originally from nuclear binding energy.

I am fine with the definition and classification.

But if we really want to introduce something like nuclear-geogenic or geogenic-nuclear for the the matter...

Do we? Currently I don't see this as too urgent. Let's rather fix this and #1490 quickly.

[l-emele]

Okay, the I'll implement the nuclear origin for now only. I combine this with #1490 in one PR.