Add `electricity imports` and `electricity exports`

[KaiSchnepf]

Description of the issue

This comes from PR #997: We use electricity imports and electricity exports in the 'mathematical expression' and definition of gross national electricity consumption but do not have a class.

Ideas of solution

First Proposals: electricity imports Electricity imports are a quantity value measuring the imported electrical energy in a spatial region (e. g. a country) over a time duration.

electricity exports Electricity exports are a quantity value measuring the exported electrical energy in a spatial region (e. g. a country) over a time duration.

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]

I think, we should define first import and export as processes and then define quantity values measuring these processes.

[KaiSchnepf]

Alright, what about: Import is the process of purchasing goods or services abroad and their delivery to the domestic market.

[l-emele]

electrical energy is neither a good nor a service, so electricity import cannot be derived from your proposed definition.

[stap-m]

I think, electrical energy can be treated as a good:

The good role is defined as: The role of a physical, produced item over which ownership rights can be established, whose ownership can be passed from one party to another by engaging in transactions, and that is not money or real estate.

And German wikipedia says about commodities (subclass of good in the OEO) Energie: Strom, Erdgas, Wärme, Wasser und Kohle werden ebenfalls als Commodities gehandelt. Strom weist die Besonderheit auf, dass er mangels Speicherfähigkeit weder ein materielles noch ein immaterielles Realgut darstellt. Er gilt auch nicht als Sache im Sinne des § 90 BGB, doch gilt Elektrizität neben Wärme als „sonstiger Gegenstand“ beim Rechtskauf des § 453 Abs. 1 BGB.[4] Im Finanzwesen ist Strom als Basiswert anerkannt, so dass sich der Stromhandel etablieren konnte.

[l-emele]

I just saw, that I had already in #891 the idea of giving electrical energy the commodity role.

I think, electrical energy should get the axiom 'has role' some 'commodity role', then this would be covered by the definition of variable cost.

However, has role is only applicable to independent continuants (a relation between an independent continuant (the bearer) and a role, in which the role specifically depends on the bearer for its existence). good is a material entity and thus an independent continuant, while electrical energy is a quality which is a specifically dependent continuant.

We can solve this, if we do not give electrical energy the commodity role but energy amount value (or a subclass of this, something like electrical energy amount value or electrical energy quantity value).[^1] From that we can further derive electricty import value and electricity export value as further subclasses. In the end, for the mathematical expression we need quantity values anyway.

• An electrical energy amount/quantity value is an energy amount value that measures a quantity of electrical energy.
• An electricity import value is an electrical energy amount/quantity value that measures the import of electrical energy.
• An electricity export value is an electrical energy amount/quantity value that measures the export of electrical energy.

[^1]: Btw, why is the class called energy amount value and not energy quantity value. I am always struggling with the first and the latter sounds much better to me.

[stap-m]

After implementing #891 / PR #1022 I saw your comment above @l-emele. We should revert the axiom electrical energy has role some fuel role and add the proposed one instead, when implementing this issue ❗

EDIT: Please ignore the comment. It will be bee solved by https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/issues/1030:

[l-emele]

No objections against my proposals for three weeks, so ready for implementation.

[stap-m]

In PR #997 we implemented gross national electricity consumption as a sum of i.a. of electricity imports and electricity exports. @jannahastings can you propose a fitting relation (from RO?) to depict the mathematical dependency between the classes? E.g. something like "mathematically dependent on" ?

[jannahastings]

Mathematical relationships have not been in scope for RO, and I think that we should rather cover mathematical relationships with embedded annotations. But we could still think, if there is an ontological dependence relationship here or something like an 'is about' relationship?

[l-emele]

To sum up the proposals of this issue:

• Import is the process of purchasing goods or services abroad and their delivery to the domestic market.
• An electrical energy amount/quantity value is an energy amount value that measures a quantity of electrical energy.
• An electricity import value is an electrical energy amount/quantity value that measures the import of electrical energy.
• An electricity export value is an electrical energy amount/quantity value that measures the export of electrical energy.

For the latter three, we have to decide on a label.

A definition for export is still missing, here is a proposal which is in line with import:

• Export is the process of selling goods or services abroad and their delivery to a foreign market.

Express the mathematical relations via is about and the mathematical formula with the annotation mathematical expression.

Note for implementation:

After implementing #891 / PR #1022 I saw your comment above @l-emele. We should revert the axiom electrical energy has role some fuel role and add the proposed one instead, when implementing this issue ❗

[l-emele]

So any objections against implementing what I summed up in my last comment?

[l-emele]

From #1083:

I think, we also need some axioms here. Unfortunately, import and export are not implemented yet, see #998.

So, as #1083 gets probably merged first, we should add these axioms in this issue.

[stap-m]

Looks good to me. Regarding the labels I'd use electrical energy amount. I'd be ok with adding electrical energy quantity value as alternative term. We could also introduce energy quantity value as alternative term for energy amount value (I thought we'd already decided on that some time ago?).

Please ignore the comment below, since it will be bee solved by #1030:

After implementing #891 / PR #1022 I saw your comment above @l-emele. We should revert the axiom electrical energy has role some fuel role and add the proposed one instead, when implementing this issue ❗

EDIT: #1030 is solved now by #1101

[stap-m]

This has been stale for a while but seems to be solved. Ok if I implement?

[l-emele]

Please do so.

[stap-m]

Any good ideas for axioms between imprt/export and market exchange?

I'd propose to include the axiom 'electrical energy'is energy participant ofsomeelectricity import/export`.

[l-emele]

I agree to the axioms:

• 'electricity import' 'has energy participant' some 'electrical energy'
• 'electricity export' 'has energy participant' some 'electrical energy'

I don't this that electricity import and export are necessarily related to a market exchange. They can be result of trading at an energy market exchange, but not necessarily have to. One can distinguish electricity import/export between physical electricity flows and commercial electricity flows. These can even be of opposite direction! See e.g. https://www.smard.de/page/en/wiki-article/5884/6140.

If we want to include a relation to a market exchange, this would be something for some subclasses of electricity import/export and thus beyond this issue.

[stap-m]

I don't this that electricity import and export are necessarily related to a market exchange.

At least the definitions refer to "domestic / foreign market". But I agree that this doesn't have to be addressed immediately.

[l-emele]

Okay, I see, this is in the definition of the general import class. Does importing necessarily mean to purchase something abroad? To me, import is mainly a transport process in which some kind of trade can be involved, but not necessarily has to. But maybe I am looking too much with an engineering background on this and have too less an economic view.

@han-f : Can you please provide an economist's opinion here?

[han-f]

Gabler Wirtschaftlexikon says about import: alle Waren- und Dienstleistungsumsätze mit Wirtschaftseinheiten, die ihren ständigen Sitz (Wohnsitz) außerhalb Deutschlands haben. Aus Sicht des Zollrechts alle Einfuhren in das [Zollgebiet] der [EG] EU.

So from an economical point of view this relates to goods and services that are obtained from an institution that has their permanent residency outside the country we are talking about. So in case we trade goods I would argue that some kind of money is exchanged. But if the price for the good is zero, then it comes down to what @l-emele said: the transport of something from A to B.

Personally, I also think about something being transported from A to B when I hear the termimport. But then again - most of the times this transport process will be inevitably linked to some kind of exchange of money and thus a market exchange?

Does it need to be linked from the modellers perspectives?

[ap-peh]

the definition of ‘electricity export value’ is confused with ‘electricity import value’