Distinguish between energy transfer and specific energy transformations

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

From OEKG:

• distinguish between transfer and transformation via energy input, e.g. electricity generation has energy input not electrical energy
• energy transfer: axiomatise that the type of energy input is the same as the energy output (and make equivalent class)

Ideas of solution

Adapt electricity generation process and heat generation process to:

• 'energy transformation' and ('has energy output' some 'electrical energy') and ('has energy input' not 'electrical energy')
• 'energy transformation' and ('has energy output' some 'thermal energy') and ('has energy input' not 'thermal energy')

Axiomatise somehow that the type of energy input and energy output are the same for energy transfer.

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]

@stap-m : I think, the first part (adapting electricity generation process and heat generation process) can be implemented immediately, right?

For the second part (adapting energy transfer) we probably need some input from @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology .

[stap-m]

I think the 'energy transfer' also depends on the potential axioms of #1530 , e.g. whether we need to express not conditions.

[stap-m]

Now that #1530 is implemented, we should adjust the proposal for electricity generation process and heat generation process to:

• 'energy transformation' and ('has main energy output' some 'electrical energy') and not ('has main energy input' some 'electrical energy') 'energy transformation' and ('has main energy output' some 'electrical energy') and ('has main energy input' only ('chemical energy' or 'thermal energy' or 'radiative energy' or 'potential energy' or 'kinetic energy'))
• 'energy transformation' and ('has main energy output' some 'thermal energy') and not ('has main energy input' some 'thermal energy')

For energy transfer subclasses we can as well find axioms now:

• electrical energy transfer:
  • 'energy transformation' and ('has main energy output' some 'electrical energy') and ('has main energy input' some 'electrical energy')
  • maybe "electricity transfer" as alternative term?
• heat transfer: 'energy transformation' and ('has main energy output' some 'thermal energy') and ('has main energy input' some 'thermal energy')

[stap-m]

We have also chemical energy transfer, which has no subclasses yet. Probably, this should imply things like the transfer or natural gas through a pipeline?
I would argue to depict this in a class material transfer or whatever called, transferring energy carriers instead of chemical energy.

[l-emele]

The Sabatier reaction is an example of a chemical energy transfer that is relevant for our domain: It is both a chemical reaction and a chemical energy transfer: Chemical energy that is stored in hydrogen is tranfered to methane. For our domain it is much more important that a chemical energy transfer happens here than that it is a chemical reaction.