German labels as alternative terms

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

In today's SIROP meeting we spoke shortly whether we should add German labels as alternative terms to all or at least the most relevant classes.

Ideas of solution

If you already have ideas for the solution describe them here

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

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

[chrwm]

If the proposal is favoured, I think it could be useful to build upon German labels from existing and in-use vocabulary, such as EnArgus.

[l-emele]

If the concepts match -- why not. However, in a lot of cases we propably cannot match 1:1, for example EnArgus has We can also add only Kraftwerk but we distinguish between power plant and power generating unit.

For matching concepts we can additionally use the annotation property may be identical to to reference the EnArgus term.

[u-mueller]

This is more a comment: I agree that German labels would be helpful not only for mapping, but also for using the OEO as e.g. dictionary for a wider public (@Ludee, didn't you suggest, that we could add easier to read German explanations of the most important terms some day?)

If we agree that German lables are important for improving the comparison tool, what workflow should be applied then? Most of the German translations won't cause trouble, but some may need discussion. Would it make sense to create issues like "Add german label to existing classes: sector", "... : sector division" etc. with lists of all important classes within these higher level classes and then work through it?

[l-emele]

I think, it is best to discuss the workflow on the next OEO dev meeting. That's why I already added the oeo dev meeting label.

[l-emele]

As a short test, I took six core concepts of the OEO and listed how I would translated. Then I checked against EnArgus and found for only two of the six corresponding entries in EnArgus.

Label	German label	EnArgus
energy	Energy	Energie
energy carrier	Energieträger	Energieträger
fuel	Brennstoff	?
energy transformation	Energieumwandlung	?
energy transfer	Energieübertragung	?
energy demand	Energienachfrage	?

[u-mueller]

Using the search bar I found two more as full synonyms - plus derived "Energieübertragung" from "energy transfer system" = "Energieübertragungssystem". Input for the discussion.

Label	German label	EnArgus
energy	Energy	Energie
energy carrier	Energieträger	Energieträger
fuel	Brennstoff	Kraftstoff
energy transformation	Energieumwandlung	?
energy transfer	Energieübertragung	?
energy demand	Energienachfrage	Energiebedarf

[l-emele]

Kraftstoff from EnArgus is not equivalent to our fuel, however it maybe equivalent to our combustion fuel. Our fuel also includes nuclear fuel while that is not mentioned in EnArgus' description of Kraftstoff.

[l-emele]

As discussed, I finalised the spreadsheet with the German labels and the EnArgus matching. However, I am not able to share this file via Google Docs. Does someone else have the possibility to share a spreedsheet in a way that it is accessible and editable without registration by user?

If not, an alternative would be to export the spreadsheet to a CSV file and add this to feature branch.

[carstenhoyerklick]

Now as a google docs document https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1snsx6zF8dqXGM9WCX0EckrdGnorrB9lMnvdvP2fx9ZQ/edit?usp=sharing

[l-emele]

I worked today a bit on the table.

In total we have in the list currently 1055 OEO classes and individuals [^1]. Of these 627 have one or more proposals for German labels. Additionally, 122 entries are matched to EnArgus.

There are some very fundamental OEO concepts where we have do discuss to find good German labels:

• portion of matter
• fuel
• quantity value

Further, we have to find good translations for the BFO classes disposition and role as there are a lot of OEO-defined classes that contain the words disposition resp. role in their English labels.

[^1]: The CRF sector individuals are currently exlcucded (filtered out) as they are so many.

[l-emele]

@han-f @stap-m @chrwm @u-mueller @carstenhoyerklick : Has anyone already had a look on the translations table? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1snsx6zF8dqXGM9WCX0EckrdGnorrB9lMnvdvP2fx9ZQ/edit?usp=sharing

[h-spinde]

It seems to me like we might risk conflicts if both this and Issue 1598 are implemented, since both proposed sites can define terms differently. For example, "Markt" is defined in enArgus as: "das Zusammentreffen von Angebot und Nachfrage" ("the meeting of supply and demand"), but in IATE as: "eine Veranstaltung, bei der auf einem örtlich bestimmten Gebiet (Marktplatz, Markthalle) zu bestimmten Markttagen und Marktzeiten Waren feilgeboten und verkauft werden" ("an event, during which wares might be offered and sold on certain market-days and market-times, in a specified location (maket-place, market-hall)").

[stap-m]

The focus of IATE is different to EnArgus. IATE provides "EU specific terminolog", whereas EnArgus provides terminology of a domain similar to OEO. Therefore, the meaning of terms from EnArgus might be usually closer to OEO. However, for some terms, a matching with IATE might be intetesing, too.

[viktorwichern]

There are some very fundamental OEO concepts where we have do discuss to find good German labels:

• portion of matter
• fuel
• quantity value

I've spend a lot of time thinking about those, and it really is hard.

fuel I can't say for sure since I'm not a domain expert, maybe the reason it is so hard to translate is that most fuel definitions just don't include nuclear fuel, and are therefore translated to Kraftstoff?

portion of matter is the worst. The best I can think of might be ansammlung von materie or, what I think would be closest to the definition homogenes konglomerat an materie. Sounds really weird though.

quantity value might possibly be translated to mengen wert.

Further, we have to find good translations for the BFO classes disposition and role as there are a lot of OEO-defined classes that contain the words disposition resp. role in their English labels.

disposition could either be disposition or veranlagung, at least on first glance I didn't see any problems with the translation of other labels.

role is a little weirder. rolle would be the obvious choice, and maybe it would actually be okay. I think some translated labels sound off, but that might just be due to unfamiliarity.

[l-emele]

It seems to me like we might risk conflicts if both this and Issue 1598 are implemented, since both proposed sites can define terms differently.

I don't think that this is a problem. For the German labels we will use alternative term, but to link to other ontologies we use the annotation may be identical to: A annotation relationship between two terms in an ontology that may refer to the same (natural) type but where more evidence is required before terms are merged. This highlights that the definitions to the linked entities might be differently defined.

fuel I can't say for sure since I'm not a domain expert, maybe the reason it is so hard to translate is that most fuel definitions just don't include nuclear fuel, and are therefore translated to Kraftstoff?

In my view, Brennstoff is best matching translation here (as already proposed in the table). nuclear fuel should be translated to Kernbrennstoff.

[viktorwichern]

In my view, Brennstoff is best matching translation here (as already proposed in the table). nuclear fuel should be translated to Kernbrennstoff.

Ohh, I just realised how to use the table... that's helpful.

But what's your opinion to the rest?

[l-emele]

But what's your opinion to the rest?

To move on, I suggest that we simply skip those classes for the moment where we do not find quickly a good translation and deal with them later. I think it is better to have German labels for a large share of classes soon than waiting long until we have German labels for all classes.

[stap-m]

portion of matter is the worst. The best I can think of might be ansammlung von materie or, what I think would be closest to the definition homogenes konglomerat an materie. Sounds really weird though.

I actually used to call it Materieportion when talking about it in German. "portion" shall indicate a quantity that is not further specified. This goes well with the German "Portion", too.

[stap-m]

quantity value might possibly be translated to mengen wert.

Ok. I think, we should use German spelling, includung camel case for Nouns, i.e. Mengenwert

[stap-m]

Further, we have to find good translations for the BFO classes disposition and role as there are a lot of OEO-defined classes that contain the words disposition resp. role in their English labels.

I don't think we should translate BFO. We have more important tasks than that and focus on the energy system terminology.

[l-emele]

I agree, that we do not need to translate the whole BFO, but we have to translate the two terms disposition and role as these are parts of a lot of OEO-defined labels like energy carrier disposition or fuel role.

[stap-m]

I agree, that we do not need to translate the whole BFO, but we have to translate the two terms disposition and role as these are parts of a lot of OEO-defined labels like energy carrier disposition or fuel role.

I see.

disposition could either be disposition or veranlagung, at least on first glance I didn't see any problems with the translation of other labels.

role is a little weirder. rolle would be the obvious choice, and maybe it would actually be okay. I think some translated labels sound off, but that might just be due to unfamiliarity.

"Rolle" and "Disposition" seem best to me. Since the BFO terms go beyond the common understanding of these terms anyway, we should stay as close as possible to "role" and "disposition" to aviod confusion, in my view. We can also discuss this in the next oeo-dev-meeting.

EDIT: Maybe for these cases, we could use Brennstoff Rolle instead of Brennstoffrolle etc. to sign that "Rolle" and "Disposition" are special terms and we therefore don't use common German spelling.

[carstenhoyerklick]

How about Fähigkeit as german translation for disposition?

[l-emele]

From OEO dev meeting 72:

• Question: How to translate "role" and "disposition" in terms like "energy carrier disposition" or "fuel role"?
  • disposition:
    • Eigenschaft die Entität besitzen kann aber nicht muss
    • Wenn verloren wird ist Entität so verändert, dass es nicht mehr die selbe Entität ist.
  • Vorschläge: Wesensart, dispositionelle Eigenschaft, Energieträgerdisposition, Energieträger Disposition
• Einigung auf:
  • Energieträgerdisposition mit einem comment: Disposition im Sinne der Philosophie "dispositionelle Eigenschaft"
  • Brennstoffrolle (Kraftstoff?, Treibstoff?)

[stap-m]

I propose to make a hands-on review session during the next oeo-dev-meeting for the table above and put it on the agenda.

[stap-m]

In the oeo-dev meeting on 2024-01-29 we did an hands-on session:

Hands-on: labels prüfen und ok oder veto geben. alles was kein veto bzw 2 oks hat, wird danach umgesetzt results: implement until line 515 from top implement until line 1375 from bottom

[l-emele]

From oeo dev meeting 74 on 2024-02-08:

• wording von Konzept fuel im Deutschen klären
  • Brennstoff, Kraftstoff und Treibstoff mögliche Übersetzungen
  • https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/wiki/Handling-ambiguous-terms
  • Vorschlag: fuel nur Brennstoff, combustion fuel alle drei label und nuclear fuel kein Brennstoff (deutsche Label nur alternative labels, deshalb Mehrdeutigkeit möglich)

[christian-rli]

@vismayajochem is going to work on this.

[vismayajochem]

In the google doc sheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1snsx6zF8dqXGM9WCX0EckrdGnorrB9lMnvdvP2fx9ZQ/edit#gid=687082420 in line 100 there are again two german lables and the second one has a question mark behind it. I proceeded like last time and implemented only the first one. Is that correct and should I do that with all following labels if there is a questionmark behind it?

[l-emele]

I think, we should exclude for now all labels that have a question mark.