Add Axiom to Final Energy Consumption Value #1832

[nelekoehler]

Summary of the discussion

As discussed in #1832 I added an axiom to final energy consumption and since it is a quantity value I adjusted the label and the definition, so that the distinction between quantity and quantity value becomes more clear.

Add

• Added an axiom: Equivalent to 'energy consuption value' and 'is about' some (consumption and 'has participant' some 'final energy carrier')

Update

• changed label: final energy consumption
• changed definition: Final energy consumption value is an energy consumption value expressing the magnitude of the energy delivered to and consumed by end users.

Workflow checklist

Automation

Closes #1832

PR-Assignee

• [x ] 🐙 Follow the Pull Request Workflow
• 📝 Update the CHANGELOG.md
• 📙 Add #'s to term tracker item

Reviewer

• 🐙 Follow the Reviewer Guide
• 🐙 Provided feedback and show sufficient appreciation for the work done

[stap-m]

I just saw that energy consumption value is not related to consumption or energy use. I'd proposed to add that axiom and have it inherited by final energy consumption value, instead of adding it to the equivalent axiom. Do you agree?

[nelekoehler]

I just saw that energy consumption value is not related to consumption or energy use. I'd proposed to add that axiom and have it inherited by final energy consumption value, instead of adding it to the equivalent axiom. Do you agree?

Yes I agree, we should add the axiom to energy consumption value. I will do that and adjust the axiom of final energy consumption value then, so that it inherits it. Should I add both 'energy use' and 'consumption' or only 'energy use' because it is a subclass of 'consumption'?

[stap-m]

energy use should be sufficient.

[nelekoehler]

I've made the axiomatic change of primary energy consumption and changed the label. Since we were already adjusting the consumptions value, I changed the labels of the other to consumption values, added the old label as an alternative label and changed the axiom of gross inland energy consumption also to 'is about' some 'non-energy-use' instead of 'has part'. Do you agree with these changes?

[stap-m]

Could you please add an axiom to primary energy carrier to primary energy consumption value. To harmonize it with final energy consumption value, also make it a defined class?!

[l-emele]

Could you please add an axiom to primary energy carrier to primary energy consumption value.

Why? Primary energy consumption is not the consumption of primary energy carriers.

[l-emele]

Now some classes do not have any SubClassOf axioms. From a strictly ontological view that is fine, however that causes some problems on the OEP (e.g. the OEO viewer cannot display these properly. So could you please reinclude for the equivalent classes:

    SubClassOf:
        OEO_00240019

[l-emele]

I am a bit unhappy about the axiomatisation of primary energy consumption value and gross inland energy consumption value. The axioms basically say, that any energy consumption value which excludes non-energy use is a PEC value and any energy consumption value which included non-energy use is a GIEC value. But this is not true.

[nelekoehler]

I am a bit unhappy about the axiomatisation of primary energy consumption value and gross inland energy consumption value. The axioms basically say, that any energy consumption value which excludes non-energy use is a PEC value and any energy consumption value which included non-energy use is a GIEC value. But this is not true.

Do you have an idea how to change that? If not, I will look into it next week and try to make a new suggestion.

[nelekoehler]

I will change the axioms about the non-energy use of final energy consumption value and gross inland consumption value from EquivalentTo to SubclassOf.

[nelekoehler]

@l-emele could you review this PR again? The Merging is still blocked, because you requested changes, which I have already implemented now.