Explorative versus target scenarios

[adelmemariani]

Description of the issue

According to page 7 of this, and page 4 of this paper, I see a categorization in energy scenarios:

1. Scenarios that explore the future.
2. Scenarios that achieve certain climate targets.

Currently, in the OEO we don't consider this categorization. I wonder if considering this distinction, can facilitate future scenario comparisons.

Workflow checklist

• [ ] I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution
• [x] I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository
• [x] The goal of this ontology is clear to me

I am aware that

• [x] every entry in the ontology should have a definition
• [x] classes should arise from concepts rather than from words

[l-emele]

We have this at least partially covered as we already have:

• target description: A target description is an information content entity that contains statements about a desired future state of a system that a person or organisation commits to in a legally binding way.
• goal description: A goal description is an information content entity that contains statements about a desired future state of a system that a person or organisation envisions or plans, or to which it commits.
• climate scenario: A climate scenario is a scenario that describes a possible future state of a climate system.

[stap-m]

Ideas:

• A target driven scenario is a scenario that contains certain target constraints/ statements that in a possible future shall be realized. The path how the targets will be met is not predefined in the scenario.
• An explorative scenario is a scenario that contains certain constraints / statements regarding measures that are taken in the near future / today to explore where these measures will lead to in a later future. The later future is not predefined in the scenario.

[l-emele]

I agree to the latest proposal. Shall we implement these?

[stap-m]

Great, I'll do that.