Improve axioms of phase transitions

[Alex2448]

Description of the issue

As described in Issue#1303, the axioms of phase transitions do not reflect that it is the same type of matter and that only the property changes.

Currently, the axioms implemented are:

• melting:
  • definition: Melting is a phase transition from a solid medium to their liquid state.
  • Axioms:
    • 'has physical input' some ('portion of matter' and 'has state of matter' value solid)
    • 'has physical output' some ('portion of matter' and 'has state of matter' value liquid)
• evaporating:
  • definition: Evaporating is a phase transition from a liquid medium to their gaseous state.
  • Axioms:
    • 'has physical input' some ('portion of matter' and 'has state of matter' value liquid)
    • 'has physical output' some ('portion of matter' and 'has state of matter' value gaseous)

Ideas of solution

• melting:
  • definition: Melting is a phase transition from a solid medium to their liquid state.
  • Axioms:
    • ('has physical input' some 'portion of matter' and 'has state of matter' value solid) and ('has physical output' some 'state of matter' and 'has state of matter' value liquid)
• evaporating:
  • definition: Evaporating is a phase transition from a liquid medium to their gaseous state.
  • Axioms:
    • ('has physical input' some 'portion of matter' and 'has state of matter' value liquid) and ('has physical output' some 'state of matter' and 'has state of matter' value gaseous)

Workflow checklist

• [x] 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]

However, these axioms do not yet reflect that it is the same type of matter. @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology : Any ideas how to axiomatise that it is the same type of matter but only property changes?

Originally posted by @l-emele in https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/issues/1303#issuecomment-1286527119

[Alex2448]

Also, how can we axiomatise somehow, that absorption and desorption are process inverses? @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology

[l-emele]

However, these axioms do not yet reflect that it is the same type of matter. @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology : Any ideas how to axiomatise that it is the same type of matter but only property changes?

If I understood the discussion in today's OEO dev meeting correctly, we cannot axiomatise things like that in OWL.

[Alex2448]

@l-emele should I close the issue then?

[stap-m]

However, these axioms do not yet reflect that it is the same type of matter. @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology : Any ideas how to axiomatise that it is the same type of matter but only property changes?

Melting is a phase transition from a solid medium to their liquid state.

At least we could describe it like that: Melting is a phase transition of a portion of matter from a solid state of matter to a liquid state of matter. 'has physical input' some ('portion of matter' and ('has state of matter' value solid)) 'has physical output' some ('portion of matter' and ('has state of matter' value liquid)) That the portion of matter from the input is necessarily the same portion of matter from the output is not depicted, though.

[l-emele]

Those axioms are already implemented.

However, the following question from @Alex2448 is still open:

Also, how can we axiomatise somehow, that absorption and desorption are process inverses? @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology

[h-spinde]

The Relationship Ontology provied a property "negatively correlated with" that has "inversely correlated with" as an alternative label. It's definded as "A relation between entities in which one increases as the other decreases." Maybe this could fit here?

Alternatively, maybe the they can be marked as disjoint classes, adding an explanation in the annotations.

[stap-m]

Those axioms are already implemented.

However, the following question from @Alex2448 is still open:

Also, how can we axiomatise somehow, that absorption and desorption are process inverses? @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology

Is this really relevant for OEO? If not, I'd suggest to close this issue.

[l-emele]

Alternatively, maybe the they can be marked as disjoint classes, adding an explanation in the annotations.

There is already an axiom adsorption DisjointWith: desorption.

Is this really relevant for OEO? If not, I'd suggest to close this issue.

In general, having the possibility to axiomatise process inverses would be nice. We have other processes where it would be nice to axiomatise this inverse relation, e.g. oxidation and reduction or import and export. But I see that it is tricky and it is probably better to have a separate issue for that.