Add axiom to energy + Update of energy concerning quantity values

[nelekoehler]

Description of the issue

As already discussed in #1510 and in dev-meeting 79 energy is a quantity. Quantity is equivalent to quality and ('has quantity value' some 'quantity value'), so we only need to add an axiom to a quantity value, so that energy will be inferred as a quantity.

Ideas of solution

Add axiom to energy:
Subclass Of has quantity value some energy amount value

To finalise the conversion of the quantity values in relation to energy, I would, in addition to adding the axiom to energy, update the term of energy storage content in the respective PR. I suggest adapting the label to the others and changing it to energy storage content value. I would add energy storage content as an alternative label. And I would also adapt the definition to the structure of the others: An energy storage content value is an energy amount value that expresses the magnitude of energy stored in an energy storage object.

[l-emele]

I agree to your proposal.

As energy now will become a quantity the mental distinction between energy and energy amount becomes obsolete. I therefore suggest to relabel energy amount value to energy value which feels much more natural.¹

Regarding energy storage I suggest the following:

• Add a class stored energy: A stored energy is an energy that is contained in an energy storage object.
  • 'stored energy' SubClassOf: 'quality of' some 'energy storage object'
• I would like to avoid a clunky label like energy storage content value. Instead I suggest the following new definition: An energy storage content is an energy value that quantifies stored energy.

Footnotes

1. Logical follow-up change: shorten electrical energy amount value to electrical energy value ↩

[nelekoehler]

Yes that makes sense, I agree. I will create a PR for that.

[stap-m]

As energy now will become a quantity value the mental distinction between energy and energy amount becomes obsolete. I therefore suggest to relabel energy amount value to energy value which feels much more natural.1

Actually, energy becomes a quantity, not a quantity value.
We called the class energy amout value (usually also called "amount of energy", or "Energiemenge" in German) originally to properly distict it from power values. It is a common mistake to mix that up...

[stap-m]

Regarding energy storage I suggest the following:

• Add a class stored energy: A stored energy is an energy that is contained in an energy storage object.
• 'stored energy' SubClassOf: 'quality of' some 'energy storage object'
• I would like to avoid a clunky label like energy storage content value. Instead I suggest the following new definition: An energy storage content is an energy value that quantifies stored energy.

Why would that be an improvement to what we have already? stored energy seems like a weird concept when restricted to energy storage objects. What about energy stored in fuels?
From my point of view, the distiction on the quantity value level makes more sense than on the quantity level.

[stap-m]

We should proceed with this issue.

• I'd be ok with relabelling energy amount value to energy value, if we keep the original label as alternative.

• Is there an agreement on adding the following axiom to energy ?

Subclass Of has quantity value some energy amount value / energy value

• I like the initial proposal to adapt energy storage content. It is a simple and clear solution.

An energy storage content value is an energy value that expresses the magnitude of energy stored in an energy storage object.

[stap-m]

@nelekoehler @l-emele any comments?

[nelekoehler]

I also agree to the relabeling, keeping energy amount value as an alternative label. And if there are no disagreements with my initial suggestions of the axiom and the adaption of energy storage content, I can create a PR for this issue.

[l-emele]

I see here a consensus to use energy value as main label and energy amount value as alternative label. So that is ready for implementation.

Regarding energy storage content (value)/stored energy I don't see a consensus yet.

[stap-m]

I see here a consensus to use energy value as main label and energy amount value as alternative label. So that is ready for implementation.

@madbkr can you implement this please