Subclasses of `energy carrier disposition` are not axiomatised.

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

From #811: Subclasses of energy carrier disposition are not axiomatised.

Ideas of solution

If you already have ideas for the solution describe them here

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

[KaiSchnepf]

We currently use e.g. 'primary energy carrier' 'has disposition' some 'primary energy carrier disposition' has disposition is a subclass of bearer of. So if we want the inverse relation we just have to implement a subclass of has bearer.

Proposal: disposes example: 'primary energy carrier disposition' 'disposes' some 'primary energy carrier' or even 'primary energy carrier disposition' 'disposes' only 'primary energy carrier' A relation between a disposition and an independent continuant (the bearer), in which the disposition specifically depends on the bearer for its existence. This definition is user friendly because we use: between (A) and (B), in which (A) depends on (B). We might redefine has disposition because of the user unfriendly definition.

We also need the axiom from the disposition to the fuel or energy. Could we also use disposes?

[stap-m]

has disposition: a relation between an independent continuant A (the bearer) and a disposition B, in which B specifically depends on A for its existence and is such that if B ceases to exist, A is physically changed. (see def of disposition) What do you think?

I'd name the inverse relation of has disposition rather is disposition of that "disposes".

[stap-m]

For fuel you're suggesting energy carrier disposition is disposition of some fuel? I could go with that, if it doesn't break the equivalent definition.

For energy, you mean to implement an inverse of the general class axioms, right? I guess that won't work or doesn't makes much sense. The axiom refers to the bearer of energy: energy carrier disposotion is not a disposition of energy subclasses, but of their bearer.

But @jannahastings is the expert here. What do you say?

[KaiSchnepf]

has disposition: a relation between an independent continuant A (the bearer) and a disposition B, in which B specifically depends on A for its existence and is such that if B ceases to exist, A is physically changed. (see def of disposition) What do you think?

I could not find a def of disposition only the elucidation. I still prefer the structure: A ... B, A ... B, A ... B and not A ... B, B ... A, B ... A. But if we want to use this part from the elucidation, we probably have to change the favoured structure.

I'd name the inverse relation of has disposition rather is disposition of that "disposes".

Your proposal is probably better.

[KaiSchnepf]

For fuel you're suggesting energy carrier disposition is disposition of some fuel? I could go with that, if it doesn't break the equivalent definition.

I meant: energy carrier disposition is disposition of some energy carrier My intention is, that if a user found energy carrier disposition she/he should know that a term energy carrier is also implemented in oeo. Maybe that is the class where the user is looking for.

For energy, you mean to implement an inverse of the general class axioms, right? I guess that won't work or doesn't makes much sense. The axiom refers to the bearer of energy: energy carrier disposotion is not a disposition of energy subclasses, but of their bearer.

But how does a user know that a term renewable energy (carrier)/combustion fuel is also implemented when only searching for renewable energy carrier disposition/combustible energy carrier dispostion?

[stap-m]

I meant: energy carrier disposition is disposition of some energy carrier

Ah. Same here: I could go with that, if it doesn't break the equivalent definition.

But how does a user know that a term renewable energy (carrier)/combustion fuel is also implemented when only searching for renewable energy carrier disposition/combustible energy carrier dispostion?

Aha, you want an axiom 'renewable energy carrier disposition' 'is disposition of' some 'renewable energy carrier'? I thought you meant the class energy itself. Same as above. We can try and see, if it breaks or not...

[stap-m]

Is this issue still relevant? If not. I'd suggest to close it.