reuse ENVO's pollution hierarchy

[sfluegel05]

Description of the issue

This comes from #636 and dev meeting 22. Currently, the OEO has only one pollution-subclass (air pollution). The ENVO has more subclasses, as well as equivalent classes and relations. We should make use of this structure in our ontology.

Ideas of solution

For all pollution-subclasses in ENVO:

• decide if the are needed in the OEO
• adjust definition to fit our ontology
• try to recreate relations
• implement and refer to ENVO-class

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

[sfluegel05]

First, we have to agree on the parent class: pollution. OEO and ENVO have some differences here:

ENVO: environmental pollution

• definition: An environmental system process that results in the introduction of contaminants into an environment.
• additional comment: Pollutants may be material or immaterial (e.g. heat energy)
• axiom 'has output' some ('environmental material' and (has_increased_levels_of some ('chemical entity' and ('has role' some 'environmental contaminant'))))

OEO: pollution

• definition: Pollution is an emission with a negative effect on the environment or organisms.
• parent class: Emission is a process releasing byproducts from human activity (e.g. production, distribution or consumption) into the environment.
• axiom has process attribute some emission factor (An emission factor is a process attribute that quantifies the emissions or removals of a gas per unit activity.)

	ENVO	OEO
pollution is a BFO-process	yes	yes
something gets released into the environment	yes	yes
what is the effect?	undesired, see environmental contaminant	negative
what get released?	something material or immaterial according to the comment and the subclasses, a chemical entity according to the axiom (I would trust the comment more in this case)	not defined directly, but it has to be a gas, because the emission factor quantifies gases
who is responsible?	only for some subclasses a human	human activity

In summary, the ENVO uses a broader definition of pollution compared to the OEO. The question for us is: Do we need the cases where pollution has a non-human cause (e.g., volcanic eruptions, forest fires) or where the pollutant is not a material entity / a gas (e.g., light pollution, thermal pollution)?

[l-emele]

In summary, the ENVO uses a broader definition of pollution compared to the OEO. The question for us is: Do we need the cases where pollution has a non-human cause (e.g., volcanic eruptions, forest fires) or where the pollutant is not a material entity / a gas (e.g., light pollution, thermal pollution)?

I don't think that we need non-human causes but when discussing about emission and pollution we had also non-material pollution/emission in mind like thermal pollution and noise.

Aligning with ENVO also affects how we treat greenhouse gases:

ENVO does not have a general emission process. ENVO's structure there is:

And interestingly ENVO does not have something like greenhouse gas emission or greenhouse gas pollution at all: Probably because greenhouse gas is a role in ENVO (imported from ChEBI).

But ENVO has a class greenhouse effect which is a subclass of atmospheric process which itself is a subclass of environmental system process: A process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.

In contrast: We have a greenhouse gas effect disposition: The greenhouse effect disposition is the disposition of a gas to contribute to the greenhouse effect, when it is emitted into the atmosphere.

Side note: ENVO has also a class climate change which is definitely a concept in the scope of the OEO and which is a subclass of environmental system process. So it seems anyway a good idea to either import a general environmental system process class or define it ourself. Our class wind (Wind is a process of air naturally moving.) would also fit perfectly into such a general class.

[sfluegel05]

So the structure for the OEO would be

• process
  • environmental system process (reuse ENVO-class, A process ~in~ which includes the components of an environmental system as participants.)
  • pollution (equivalent to ENVO's environmental pollution, remove axiom has process attribute some emission factor)
    • pollution-subclasses
  • greenhouse effect (reuse ENVO-class)
  • climate change (reuse ENVO-class)

For environmental system process, we also need environmental system. ENVO defines it as A system which has the disposition to environ one or more material entities. with a note that the relation "environed by" is under development, which doesn't seem like a useful definition to me. Maybe we can find another definition for environmental system that fits our purpose better.

[KaiSchnepf]

I found a definition for environmental system source: A system where life interacts with the various abiotic components found in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. My suggestion is: Environmental system is a system in which life interacts with the various abiotic components found in the environment. I can´t find a definition for environment in our ontology and if we don´t use any it might be easier to employ environment instead of atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere.

[stap-m]

What a productive issue, nice :) I'm in favour of adding environmental system process and environmental system. Our emission process is now mising in the proposal by @sfluegel05 . I don't really see, why we should'nt keep it. An emission is not necessarily a pollution.

[stap-m]

This issue is already well-prepared, but somehow got stale. @l-emele do you see any necessity to discuss this further / again?

If not, @h-spinde could you please prepare an import script for ENVO in oeo-tools?

[l-emele]

This issue is already well-prepared, but somehow got stale. @l-emele do you see any necessity to discuss this further / again?

I would like to have a summary what exactly we will implement. To me it is not completely clear from the discussions above.

If not, @h-spinde could you please prepare an import script for ENVO in oeo-tools?

My understanding of the discussion is that we don't import the ENVO classes but reuse ENVO's definitions and labels for new OEO classes.

[stap-m]

If not, @h-spinde could you please prepare an import script for ENVO in oeo-tools?

My understanding of the discussion is that we don't import the ENVO classes but reuse ENVO's definitions and labels for new OEO classes.

I see, sorry.

I found a definition for environmental system source: A system where life interacts with the various abiotic components found in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. My suggestion is: Environmental system is a system in which life interacts with the various abiotic components found in the environment. I can´t find a definition for environment in our ontology and if we don´t use any it might be easier to employ environment instead of atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere.

I just checked ENVO again. I have the impression, that our understanding of environmental system is more in line with ENVOs ecosystem[^1] (ENVO_01001110), with is a subclass thereof. I'd like to suggest to reuse this definition instead and make environmental system and ecosystem alternative terms for the use is OEO.

EDIT: Ecosystem: An environmental system which includes both living and non-living components.

[^1]: An environmental system which includes both living and non-living components.

[l-emele]

I just had a look in the BFO introductory paper called The environment ontology: contextualising biological and biomedical entities. There I found interesting additional information regarding environmental system:

We propose that an environment (synonymous with an environmental system [ENVO_01000254]) is a certain sort of system which has the disposition to environ, that is to contain within its BFO:site [BFO_0000029] and causally integrate, some BFO:material entity.

[viktorwichern]

Proposed Changes:

1. Continuants:

   • Add environmental system with the alternative title 'ecosystem'. ecosystem is a subclass of environmental system in the ENVO, but since we do not have that structure we would have to change its definition from "An environmental system which includes both living and non-living components" to "A system which includes both living and non-living components", and link to reference the ENVO class (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01001110).

2. Occurents:

   • Add environmental system process (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_02500000)
   • make our class emission a subclass of environmental system process
   • make our class pollution equivalent to ENVO's class environmental pollution(http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_02500036)
   • add ENVO's climate change class (as a subclass of environmental system process) (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01000629)
   • add ENVO's greenhouse effect class (as a subclass of environmental system process) (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_02500004)

The ENVO's definition of climate change is not Aristotelian.

[stap-m]

We did not yet decide on importing or not. With respect to interoperability, I'd vote for an actual import.