Add (sub)sector individuals for sectors from IPCC sector division

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

From OEO DEV Meeting 7: Add sector and subsector individuals for sectors from IPCC sector divisions

Ideas of solution

• Add sectors and subsectors from IPCC sector divisions
• Add subsector relations via has part object property
• Reuse existing definition from the IPCC Guidelines

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]

Probably best to solve #460 before.

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

Can you give a reference to the sector definition?

---

Also, I think it could we valuable to discuss this at least while #460 is still pending. We don't expect any fundamental changes there (the issue is titled "rename …"), no?

[l-emele]

The currently valid 2006 IPCC guidelines can be found here: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html The definitions are scattered across these guidelines which are collection of documents.

Each of the sectors has a label and a systematic label showing its position in the subsector tree structure.

One example is the sector Energy Industries has the systematic label 1.A.1 indicating that it is a subsector of a sector Fuel combustion with the systematic label 1.A which itself is a subsector of a sector Energy with the systematic label 1. Its definition can be found in volume 2, chapter 2 as: Comprises emissions from fuels combusted by the fuel extraction or energy-producing industries. @jannahastings : For these systematic labels like 1.A.1, do we want to use the annotation alternative term or do we want to create a new annotation type?

@0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q : We a long discussion last week on sectors, #460 and #461 are results of this. It is probably easier if we solve #460 first, but #461 definitely be solved soon, too.

[jannahastings]

@jannahastings : For these systematic labels like 1.A.1, do we want to use the annotation alternative term or do we want to create a new annotation type?

Let's create a new annotation type just for these so that we can be clearer about what these mean and where they come from. We can make it a sub-annotation-property of 'alternative term'.

[l-emele]

What about something like a unique individual identifier with the following definition: A unique individual identifier is an alternative term that is unique for one individual of a class. Unique individual identifiers follow usually a structure defined e.g. by a sector division.

If we define it generically like my proposal we can in future use it also for other individuals. E.g. Eurostat uses codes for energy carriers (example: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GLOSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&IntKey=16416335).

[l-emele]

Probably best to solve #460 before.

460 is solved, so we could proceed there.

What about something like a unique individual identifier with the following definition: A unique individual identifier is an alternative term that is unique for one individual of a class. Unique individual identifiers follow usually a structure defined e.g. by a sector division.

@jannahastings : If you agree with my proposal above I will implement this and start adding some sector individuals.

[jannahastings]

Basically I agree. However, I think the parent for this entity should be 'identifier' in IAO:

http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/IAO?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0020000

The definition might be able to be abbreviated slightly if it is based on this parent.

[l-emele]

Sounds good. If we import identifier from IAO this will be an entity. But the intended use is as an annotation property. Does that work?

We also have the annotation property dc:identifier which might be a parent. But it has no definition.

[jannahastings]

Ah, okay, sorry, yes. Then I think it might be better as a sub-property of dc:identifier, even though that doesn't have a definition.

[l-emele]

So then the definition would be: A unique individual identifier is an identifier that is unique for one individual of a class. Unique individual identifiers follow usually a structure defined e.g. by a sector division.?

[l-emele]

Unfortunately I did not manage to finalise this issue before my summer holidays. I successfully merged the dev branch into my branch feature/sector-division-#461 without any merge conflicts. But my new annotation property unique individual identifier (OEO_00010037) does not show up any more in Protégé and and my sector individuals do not show up either.

Looking into a branch compare I did not find any errors: https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/compare/feature/sector-division-%23461

@jannahastings : Any ideas?

[sfluegel05]

The problem is that you used the Object Property is_defined_by for your sector individuals which got replaced by OEO_00000504 when you merged the dev into your branch. So hopefully replacing is_defined_by with OEO_00000504 for the individuals should do the trick.

[l-emele]

To do: PR for the current state (after the problem is solved) as we need the annotation property for 1.1 release and for other issues. The individuals can wait, so let the issue open after the PR.

[l-emele]

Thank you, @sfluegel05. Your solutions seems to have worked.

[l-emele]

For the individuals I propose the following structure:

• A two-part: In the first sentence a rather generic Aristotelian definition that links the sector individual to the sector class and the sector division. In the second sentence (and potential further sentences) a copy and paste from from the original sector division (if available).
• A individual label that includes the sector divisions.

For the IPCC sector individuals that could look like:

• IPCC sector: energy: The IPCC sector energy is an energy sector defined by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: All GHG emissions arising from combustion and fugitive releases of fuels. Emissions from the non-energy uses of fuels are generally not included here, but reported under Industrial Processes and Product Use.
• IPCC sector: fuel combustion: The IPCC sector fuel combustion is an energy sector defined by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Emissions from the intentional oxidation of materials within an apparatus that is designed to raise heat and provide it either as heat or as mechanical work to a process or for use away from the apparatus.
• IPCC sector: energy industry: The IPCC sector energy industry is a sector defined by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Comprises emissions from fuels combusted by the fuel extraction or energy-producing industries.
• IPCC sector: manufacturing industries and construction: The IPCC sector energy industry is a sector defined by the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Emissions from combustion of fuels in industry. Also includes combustion for the generation of electricity and heat for own use in these industries.

@jannahastings @stap-m : Do you agree?

[jannahastings]

I agree! The proposed texts look clear and informative to me.

[l-emele]

We discussed to link the sector individuals with has part relations. But I am only able to use that relation between classes and cannot apply it to individuals.

Any ideas, @jannahastings ?

[l-emele]

I found it, I looked on the wrong place:

[jannahastings]

Great. Well spotted! Protege's user interface is not always the most intuitive :-/

[l-emele]

Just discussed with @stap-m via phone some improvements to clarify the that there are slight differences between the (theoretical) IPCC guidelines and the actual use in greenhouse gas inventories and data, which is relevant for modelling.

• Add class common reporting format: The common reporting format (CRF) is a sector division used for compiling national inventory reports on greenhouse gas emissions and providing emission relevant data in so called CRF tables.
• Relabel and redefine ipcc_1996_guidelines to CRF sectors (IPCC 1996): CRF sectors (version IPCC 1996) is a version of the common reporting format that was used for national greenhouse gas inventories until the year 2014. It implements the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (with some deviations).
• Likewise, relabel and redefine ipcc_2006_guidelines to CRF sectors (IPCC 2006): CRF sectors (version IPCC 2006) is a version of the common reporting format that was used for national greenhouse gas inventories since the year 2015. It implements the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (with some deviations).
• Use prefix CRF sector (IPCC 2006) instead of IPCC sector.