-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Energy as a disposition? Using BFO at its full extent. #1812
Comments
This is turning slowly into a paper 😅 |
Be aware that we already have a conference paper on this exact topic: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3249/paper1-Ensusto.pdf EDIT: Please be also aware that we are not creating a physics ontology but an energy modelling ontology. Therefore we neglect some physical aspects. |
FYI, Energy on a more fundamental level will also be topic of a FOIS paper that I am going to submit together with @fabianneuhaus. |
I have an even better definition that, in my opinion makes the model very robust.
And I would suggest adding state:
The "mereological sum" part allows things like Another key element is "by virtue of its current state" or "on the basis of its current state". This excludes models like "The disposition of Fido to run away." or "The disposition of a plant to grow". But allows things like "The disposition of this stove to heat my food" and "The instantaneous disposition of a portion of salt to dissolve in water" Enthalpy of solvation. After the process that realizes the energy is finished a new This is a model that is both compatible with SNAP and SPAN views of energy Grenon & Smith because of the properties of occurrents where they can have temporal parts. The SNAP view can be viewed as the infinitely small view of system dynamics often found in thermodynamics and the SPAN view is such as the one used in energy systems modelling where energy transformation is viewed as an input/output process. |
What about Where |
We already have energy transformation so we can lean down our definitions a lot. Old:
New:
We can spare us the last part by properly classifying an energy transformation unit as an object aggregate. Old:
New:
This should be materialized in the proper changes in the subclasses: Old:
New:
comment: combined heat and power plants usually have both the We could consider forcing the CHPP to have both the parts and the functions as musts, but since they have components with these functions as parts this is not necessary. |
Some potential energy sub-classes rewording with disposition in mind:
(it is also realized in a chemical reaction which can be combustion, pyrolisis, gasification etc.)
Origins are a hard thing, but in the context of energy I would tend to associate them to the processes in which they are realized. Some construct which says a renewable process is such a process in which its participants are of renewable origin, or nuclear process(fission, fusion) is such in which nuclear binding energy is realized. speaking of
'potential energy': "Potential energy is the energy that a material entity contains due to its position relative to other material entities or to stresses within itself."
I would tend to drop 'renewable energy' in favor of renewable process, or renewable energy transformation.
This last one was hard |
And if we were to use this model,
And we can also clean up that way the A is a |
One might wonder, what happens when I want to talk about In the case renewable energy capacity for example, I would make it a subclass of
alternative label: example: "The calories of an apple"
In the case of realized energy, for example in national reports of energy supply in a certain month or year, one should refer to the processes in which they were realized. One speaks of the realized energy output of a process whose participants are of renewable origin, or better not conventional origin.
example: The energy consumed by my household today. alternatively
alternative label for both: This is one of those examples on the point of using ontologies, language is tricky and when people use a word in different contexts they might mean a different concept.
|
And using the vision of energy profile in the previous comment, the definition of Power used by the colleagues in Buffalo fits almost perfectly
|
I could go longer but I think I will wrap this up here, here is a TL;DR:
|
Description of the issue
Related to: #1527
I have been busying myself on trying to understand BFO better in the last few weeks and some major issues have arisen during the process. The topics in this issue imply very drastic changes on the ontology so I don't really expect them to produce some implementation in the short term. If possible lets discuss this in our presence meeting this week, but we have a tight agenda so we might do it in other occasion. I am going to list some of the issues but I think this is not exhaustive. I will propose pairs of issues and solutions:
Energy as a quality
This one is probably the one that has been worrying me the most. We define energy as:
At one side we have qualities which per definition do not require further processes to be realized but then we have the usual definition that states that energy is the capacity to perform work. These concepts go very deeply into the fundamental components of an ontology, energy is pretty much in every material entity and it has relevance in two contexts: potentiality, namely everything related to storage and potential energy; and actual which is when energy is considered in context of the material entities performing change. The former is realizable in the latter.
Solution: Energy as a disposition
Energy is a realizable entity. Even in its latent state there is a possibility, even if small that it performs some transformation in its material entity and its surroundings. So I would suggest something like:
With this proposal I would suggest against: #1654
Energy transfer
We currently have a problem with energy transfer not properly differentiating from energy transformation. And I think that the solution using this framework is trivial.
energy transfer
: Energy transfer is a transformation with at least two participants(system) where a reduction of energy in of one or more participants is complemented by an equivalent increase in one or more participants within the same system.For instance:
energy loss
: Energy loss is a transformation where there is a reduction of energy of its participants with no equivalent increase among them.energy gain
: Energy gain is a transformation where there is an increase of energy of its participants with no equivalent decrease among them.The last two make sense only if we think about energy systems!! This means that as long as we define a system, there is no problems of energy coming from or going to nowhere. With this model we also avoid having weird edge cases related to losses in energy transfer.
Energy as disposition excludes many forms in which energy is considered.
If we see energy as a disposition. We will then often refer to energy as
latent energy
orinstantaneous energy
, or the quantification of the potential change that the material entity can exert. But when we discuss things like electricity transmission, conduction, radiation etc. we often also refer to the same units of energy. These, I would say are part of the realization of the other forms of energies. In principle these should be associated not to the entities bearing them but the processes in which they are flowing.Here is where the concept of
process profile
comes into play.Lets take for example the process of heat transfer. Using our new definition of energy transfer there is no changes in its definition. But the meaning changes a little
In an instance of heat transfer process we imply that we have a participating system(a material entity) of, for example, two bodies A and B. At time 0 there is only latent
thermal energy
in each one of them where A is higher than B, thus creating a differential. This differential allows the flow of heat from A to B until time n where they are found in an equilibrium.There are a lot of things happening at the same time in this process. Namely, the atoms of A move slower, the atoms of B move faster. Their respective temperatures increase/deacrease etc. The instantatneous changes at each time t0, t1, t2... tn have their own characteristics, which can be expressed by the different
states
of the objects in the system at each one of the instants. These different independent changes are what we would callprocess profiles
of the aheat transfer
process. And they are what we usually measure, estimate and plot to represent the process. These profiles are what we ultimately associate with things like instantaneous energy transfer or power.But what about the input/output constructs related to Transformation?
This has been also been bothering for a while. The RO defines input(and output as):
This means that this relation already has material entities within scope. So what we do by defining
transformation
is further specifying processes that exclusively transform its material entities. By the way, at least for inputhas_physical_input
seems to be redundant since in this context.There is no solution necessary for this, I think it is automatically congruent, we should just take into account that this excludes from transformation anything that implies changes in non-physical entities.
The problem arises with the relation we call
has_energy_participant
and its cousins. Energy being a dependent continuant, can't participate in the process itself. The reason I think this is problematic is because this allows for suspicious models when axiomizing processes. For exampleWorkflow checklist
I am aware that
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: