Production values

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

We have the process production¹, but no process attribute(s) associated with.

I see two general types of process attributes / quantity values: The physical amount and the economic value of the production.

Ideas of solution

Process attributes:

• production amount: A production amount is a process attribute that describes the amount of output of a production.

Quantity values:

• production amount value: A production amount value is a quantity value quantifies the production amount.
  • volumetric production value: A volumetric production value is a production value that quantifies the production amount using a volume unit.
  • mass production value: A mass production value is a production value that quantifies the production amount using a mass unit.
  • monetary production value: A monetary production value is a production value that quantifies the production amount using a currency.

Labels probably need improvement.

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

Footnotes

1. Production is the process of combining various inputs in order to create an output that has value and can be used by other processes. ↩

[l-emele]

@OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-dev : Any feedback on my proposals in this issue?

[robbiemorrison]

two thoughts

• In economics, production is the result of combining factor inputs (labor, capital, raw materials, processed materials, and so on) to produce outputs — as governed by the production function. My economics dictionary does not specify outputs further, but output is often measured in number of items produced (or colloquially by the placeholder term"widgets") so an item production value would seem necessary
• "mass production" is a well established concept, so the label mass production value should be improved upon

[UStucky]

Comment on definition of production:
Since the inputs in general do have a value, too, this should be apparent somehow in the definition. In German there is the term "Mehrwert", "added value" in English, attributed to the output in relation to the inputs' values. This must not necessarily be a higher value coined in some currency, but it is a value, the product users cannot obtain otherwise but by producing the process output.
In addition, it might not be just a simple combination of inputs, in general these are processed and thereby form the new output of the production process.
So, we have two more aspects: the processing of the inputs and the creation of added value attributed to the output.

Comment on attributes for the production process:

1. production amount:
   a. In any case it is a physical quantity, more specific an extensive property, or simply number of pieces.
   b. Depending on the kind of production it may be common to have more than one physical property to characterize the amount of output.
   c. There may be extensive physical properties that are not used to characterize the amount of a production, but a priori we cannot rule out any; consequently we should define the superclass of an extensive property to constrain future extensions.
   d. It should be clear that the term "production amount" means a physical property of the subtype extensive property.
   e. I am not sure how to classify numer of pieces, but I have once done it by classifying as physical property – which would mean an extensive property.
2. economic value:
   a. If I were no physicist I would say an economic value is just another extensive property of dimension "currency" and various possible units that usually do not have an all too long life span :-D
   b. Because I do not have a better idea (and neglecting my physicist's attitude) I would like to support the suggestion of a "monetary production value" or a respective term.

Ad 1d:
As a newbie I am not sure how all the issues and statements I made in both of my comments, but I would call "production amount" and "economic value" the attributes of (or the predicates in a statement on) production processes.
"production process" is a subclass of "process"?
"physical property" is the superclass of "extensive property" and the latter is the superclass of "mass production value" etc.
"extensive property" is the type of "production amount"?
I am still not sure where to connect "monetary production value".

[robbiemorrison]

As in economics, the notion of production should be expanded to include services. For instance, I can bid in and supply spinning reserves for a particular period and produce nothing tangible — such as kWh's — if no unplanned events occur.

[l-emele]

Since PR #1748 which was merged yesterday we have two new classes helps solving in this issue:

• service product role: A service product role is the role of an immaterial entity that is the result of a service process, and whose value is determined by the value and the costs of the service.
• service product: A service product is an immaterial entity that has the service product role.

We could add the axiom 'service product' 'has role' some 'good role'. The service product would be inferred as subclass of good.

The class production is currently defined as: Production is the transformation process of combining various inputs in order to create an output that is a good. It is axiomatised as:

Class: production
    EquivalentTo:
      transformation
       and ('has physical output' some 'material entity')
       and ('has output' some good)
    SubClassOf:
      transformation
      'has output' some good
      'has physical input' some 'material entity'

However there are a couple of problems with the current implementation:

• The definition does not specify any inputs, but the axioms do.
• EquivalentTo axioms do not match SubClassOf axioms.

To solve this, I suggest

• to improve the definition to: Production is the transformation process of combining various inputs in order to create an output that is a good with added value. Incorporating the reference to added value by @UStucky.¹
• to delete the referenced the axiom (parts) related to material entity. Also we do not need to specify the 'has output' some good twice. So the axioms should look like:

Class: production
    EquivalentTo:
      transformation
       and ('has output' some good)
    SubClassOf:
      transformation

I further propose two additional subclasses

• A material production is a production process that produces materials goods.
• A immaterial production is a production process that produces immaterial goods.

Class: 'material production'
    EquivalentTo:
      transformation
       and ('has output' some ('material entity' and ('has role' some 'good role')))
    SubClassOf:
      transformation

Class: 'immaterial production'
    EquivalentTo:
      transformation
       and ('has output' some ('immaterial entity' and ('has role' some 'good role')))
    SubClassOf:
      transformation

If we find the axioms too ugly or nested, we could further add two subclasses of good, reusing the definition of good²:

• A material good is a material entity that has the good role.
• An immaterial good is an immaterial entity that has the good role.

Then the axiom part ('has output' some ('material entity' and ('has role' some 'good role'))) of material production could be shortened to ('has output' some 'material good') (immaterial likewise).

Sorry for this long answer. But I think, once we have sorted out production it will be easier to solve the original purpose of this issue.

Footnotes

1. However, we do not have the concept added value yet in the OEO and discussing that too is a bit too much for this issue. ↩

2. A good is a continuant that has the good role. ↩

[stap-m]

We could add the axiom 'service product' 'has role' some 'good role'. The service product would be inferred as subclass of good.

Is this correct / what we want?
We added the service product to be able to treat it similarly to good, in case "goods and services" are summarized. The def of "good" talks about ownership, but I am not sure this can be applied to a service product. I'd see there rather a recipient than an owner. But I am not an expert on that...

[l-emele]

Okay, I see your point. What about to introduce an additional superclass, something like a product with a potential definition:
A product is an entity that is either a good or a service product.

Then we could refine production to:
Production is the transformation process of combining various inputs in order to create an output that is a product with added value.

[stap-m]

@han-f is such a product class sensible from an economy experts point of view?

Else, I could also go with: Production is the transformation process of combining various inputs in order to create an output that is a good or service procuct with added value. and reflect this in the axioms as well.

[han-f]

I am fine with having a service product and would not know a reason why we should not distinguish this explicitly. It may seem a bit odd at first to think about a service being an output of a production process, but I assume one could argue that for example a haircut is obtained through a production process that combinds hands, scissors, mirror etc. to transform hair from state A to desired state B, so the service product is the haircut?

[robbiemorrison]

I've not followed this discussion closely, but the concept of an energy service has been around for at least thirty years. Please see:

• Groscurth, Helmuth-M, Thomas Bruckner, and Reiner Kümmel (1995). "Modeling of energy-services supply systems". Energy. 20 (9): 941–958. doi:10.1016/0360-5442(95)00067-Q.

That paper essentially describes an early energy systems ontology. And I do suggest a quick skim for an historical perspective.

Energy services are defined thus in the introduction: "energy services are the ends for which the energy system provides the means".

So that is quite general. I will add that specific energy services are usually specified using intensive variables: air temperature, speed over land, illumination level (technically luminance), and so on. So I think that aspect is quite important. More on Wikipedia:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties

I am not sure what the equivalent metric for a hair cut would be: relative removed mass of hair?

Incidentally, that cited paper underpinned the deeco framework, now archived here on GitHub:

• https://github.com/robbiemorrison/deeco