`oil and petroleum products` should be restructured

[sfluegel05]

Description of the issue

This comes from #636 and developer meeting 22. oil and petroleum products and its subclasses have long definitions and the structure of the subclasses needs to reevaluated (e.g., are kerosene and paraffin really the same class?). Relations to ENVO classes should also be taken into account.

Ideas of solution

Organise a specialised meeting for this topic (~ September), @carstenhoyerklick invites an external expert.

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]

From OEO Dev 25 and #811: We need also the concepts of liquid combustion fuels and liquid fossil combustion fuel. These could be implemented as equivalent classes combustion fuel and (has normal state of matter liquid) and fossil combustion fuel and (has normal state of matter liquid).

And if we do so we should do similar for solid and gaseous.

[KaiSchnepf]

As discussed in OEO dev meeting #26, I prepared a first restructure of fuels.

Unfortunately, I could not find a GitHub function to display an organigram. If somebody knows a tool or function, please let me know. For this reason, you can find the first restructure here on an etherpad. I already included the suggestions from #872.

I could not find a solution to integrate oil and petroleum products as a subclass of fuel. Maybe somebody else has a proposal.

[l-emele]

Please keep in mind that the current structure of the fuels is the result of a long process and and a lot of discussions. We don't do want to change everything, but focus on adapting only that part that is related to oil and petroleum products and probably some other liquid fuels. Especially the nuclear fuels are definitely not part of this issue.

[l-emele]

Conclusion from OEO dev #27: Include missing solid, liquid, equivalent classes for combustion fuel, fossil combustion fuel, renewable fuel, biofuel and synthetic fuel.

Example: We have solid fossil fuel:

• Definition: Solid fossil fuels are fuels of fossil origin and that have a solid state of matter under normal conditions.
• EquivalentTo: ('has origin' some fossil) and ('has disposition' some 'combustible energy carrier disposition') and ('has normal state of matter' value solid)

The respective class for liquid fossil fuel would be:

• Definition: Liquid fossil fuels are fuels of fossil origin and that have a liquid state of matter under normal conditions.
• EquivalentTo: ('has origin' some fossil) and ('has disposition' some 'combustible energy carrier disposition') and ('has normal state of matter' value liquid)

[l-emele]

I can implement that part on the solid/liquid/gaseous.

[l-emele]

I just figured out, that the equivalence expressions can be much simpler: In the example of liquid fossil fuels it can be just fossil combustion fuel and ('has normal state of matter' value liquid)

[l-emele]

After merging #931 the our structure of portion of matter (with focus on liquid fuels) looks now like this:

Asserted	Inferred

Not showing everything in the inferred view as there are a lot of repetitions due to the intended inferred multi-hierarchy.

Now we have a better basis for restructured oil and petroleum products and related concepts.

[KaiSchnepf]

I just figured out, that the equivalence expressions can be much simpler: In the example of liquid fossil fuels it can be just fossil combustion fuel and ('has normal state of matter' value liquid)

I just checked renewable fuel. Definition: A renewable fuel is a fuel that has a renewable origin and an renewable energy carrier disposition The axiom is: fuel and ('has disposition' some 'renewable energy carrier disposition') I think we have to add as an axiom: 'has origin' some renewable Otherwise, we have to delete the part of the definition which might be insufficient. A renewable energy carrier disposition is defined that it contains renewable energy. But there is a lack of axioms for the renewable energy carrier disposition, so its definition is not consistent to the axioms... That´s why the connection from renewable fuel to renewable origin is interrupted. Renewable energy 'has origin' some renewable, which would be sufficient.

I think, we should add for renewable fuel: has origin' some renewable Additionally, we could open a new issue for the inconsistent axioms of renewable energy carrier disposition. From my point of view, conventional energy carrier disposition has also a lack of the equivalent axiom.

[l-emele]

The definition should be: A renewable fuel is a fuel that has a renewable energy carrier disposition. See https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/issues/741#issuecomment-906370181

[KaiSchnepf]

Alright, but how is renewable energy carrier disposition connected to renewable energy while using axioms? The definition of renewable energy carrier disposition is: A renewable energy carrier disposition is an energy carrier disposition of an material entity that contains renewable energy. But it does not use any axioms to show its connection to renewable energy.

[l-emele]

None of the subclasses of energy carrier disposition has any axioms apart from the SubclassOf. But as this issue here is about restructuring oil and petroleum products and not about the dispositions, I created a new issue #984.

[l-emele]

How do you we proceed with the oil and petroleum products? How do we bring the ideas from the presentation on hydrocarbons and fuels of last autumn into the OEOs?

[l-emele]

Some things, I remember from the presentations:

• Hydrocarbons can be further distinguished by their chemical structure: Aliphatic hydrocarbons, cycloaliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatics of these. However, we probably do not need this full structure, but propabaly only parts as we don't want to built a chemistry ontology.
• Synthetic fuels can be clustered by either chemical structure and properties or by raw material and production process.
• Diesel is somehow a property of a couple of different hydrocarbons with the common thing that they can be used in a Diesel engine. This calls for introducing something like a diesel fuel role and define Diesel fuel as equivalent to 'combustion fuel' and 'has role' some 'diesel fuel role'. (Additionally we might also add a diesel engine as A diesel engine is an internal combustion engine that uses a diesel fuel, but this is probably out of scope of this issue.)

[l-emele]

From today's OEO DEV meeting:

decision: include all fuels directly within 'portion of matter' for now; group later if needed; delete 'oil and petroleum products class' & redefine its subclasses under 'portion of matter' Hydrocarbons can be further distinguished by their chemical structure: Aliphatic hydrocarbons, cycloaliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatics of these. However, we probably do not need this full structure, but propabaly only parts as we don't want to built a chemistry ontology. Synthetic fuels can be clustered by either chemical structure and properties or by raw material and production process. Diesel is somehow a property of a couple of different hydrocarbons with the common thing that they can be used in a Diesel engine. This calls for introducing something like a diesel fuel role and define Diesel fuel as equivalent to 'combustion fuel' and 'has role' some 'diesel fuel role'. (Additionally we might also add a diesel engine as A diesel engine is an internal combustion engine that uses a diesel fuel, but this is probably out of scope of this issue.)

[l-emele]

I just saw, that we already have hydrocarbon: Hydrocarbon is a portion of matter which is member of class of organic chemical compounds composed only of the elements carbon (C) and hydrogen (H).

The class oil and petroleum products has the axiom has part some hydrocarbons.

[l-emele]

From OEO DEV 32:

• background
  • 'oil and petroleum products' subclass structure doesn't suit our needs anymore
  • distinguish: chemical properties <> their usage <> production
  • 1 issue with 'oil and petroleum products' subclass
  • 1 issue biofuels
  • 1 issue biogasoline / biodiesel https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/issues/960
  • distinguish fuels by chemical properties; & introduce role (how it can be used); & origin of fuels; role applicable to fossil / bio diesel fuel; chemical properties very similar
  • will allow: group them by classes (origins / roles (group chemically similar fuels biodiesel & diesel))
  • further distinction of gasoline engine & diesel engine (for cars)
  • proposal is accepted
• 'oil and petroleum products' still needed as parent class for liquid fuels?
  • hydrocarbons -> subclass of portion of matter
  • include fuels in this subclass 'gasoline' instead
  • definition hydrocarbons: is a portion of matter but consists only of hydrogen and carbon atoms
  • with a chemical formula ... contains of molucules that contain only/mainly c and h atoms
  • decision: include all fuels directly within 'portion of matter' for now; group later if needed; delete 'oil and petroleum products class' & redefine its subclasses under 'portion of matter'
  • Hydrocarbons can be further distinguished by their chemical structure: Aliphatic hydrocarbons, cycloaliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatics of these. However, we probably do not need this full structure, but propabaly only parts as we don't want to built a chemistry ontology.
  • Synthetic fuels can be clustered by either chemical structure and properties or by raw material and production process.
  • Diesel is somehow a property of a couple of different hydrocarbons with the common thing that they can be used in a Diesel engine. This calls for introducing something like a diesel fuel role and define Diesel fuel as equivalent to 'combustion fuel' and 'has role' some 'diesel fuel role'. (Additionally we might also add a diesel engine as A diesel engine is an internal combustion engine that uses a diesel fuel, but this is probably out of scope of this issue.)

[l-emele]

Parts of this issue have been implemented, but other parts need more discussion and time for implementation so I move this issue to the next milestone.

[l-emele]

The current asserted structure of portion of matter looks like this:	The current inferred structure of liquid combustion fuel currently looks like this:

If we still additionally want to have more structure, then I suggest that we add something like organic compound. First proposal: An organic compound is a portion of matter that contains carbon (C). This would lead to the following asserted structure within portion of matter:

• air pollutant
• ammonia
• carbon dioxide
• carbon monoxide
• fuel
• gas mixture
• greenhouse gas
• hydrogen
• nitrogen oxides
• organic compound <= New!
  • ethanol
  • hydrocarbon
  • hydrofluorocarbon
  • perfluorocarbons
  • volatile organic compound
• oxygen
• particulate matter
• plutonium
• rock
• sulphur dioxide
• sulphur hexafluoride
• thorium
• uranium
• water

We have then to decide whether we put all the liquid fuels that are basically mixtures of various molecules as organic compounds or whether we include something like a liquid mixture, similar to the already existing gas mixture [^1].

• biodiesel
• biogasoline
• crude oil
• gas diesel oil
• gasoline
• kerosene

If we go for the option with this liquid mixture (which I am currently in favour of) then we probably have to add something in the definition of organic compound.

The remaining classes are, but these are out of scope of this issue:

• biomass
• charcoal
• coal
• peat

[^1]: A gas mixture is a portion of matter that is a composition of different kinds of portions of matter and that has a gaseous normal state of matter.

[l-emele]

@OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-domain-expert-energy-modelling : Any thoughts on my last comment?

[stap-m]

I like the ideas.

If we go for the option with this liquid mixture (which I am currently in favour of) then we probably have to add something in the definition of organic compound.

Can you specify?

[l-emele]

To conclude this issue:

• We had a (detailled presentation)[https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wiki/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/oeo-dev-docs/20211115_hydrocarbon_fuels.pdf] on various aspects of hydrocarbons and fuels. Some aspects of the presentation have led to a partial restructuring of our fuel classes. Other aspects (e.g. aliphatic versus cycloaliphatic hydrocarbons) we never discussed again. I interpret this as that these aspects are currently irrelevant to our domain.
• Apart from that, there were ideas for further structuring by introducing meta classes organic compound and liquid mixture. However, as there was no progress in the last to year.

Thus, I close this issue now. If the need comes again for further structuring we can start with a new issue.