e_arel

This is turning slowly into a paper 😅

I have an even better definition that, in my opinion makes the model very robust. > energy: "Energy is a disposition of material entities to change the state of itself...

What about `energy converting components`? Until now we have been allowing both objects and processes be domain of the `has input/output` properties. This opens the ontology for very severe ambiguities....

We already have energy transformation so we can lean down our definitions a lot. Old: >'energy converting component': "An energy converting component is an artificial object that is usually a...

Some potential energy sub-classes rewording with disposition in mind: >chemical energy:"Chemical energy is energy ~that is stored in~ of the chemical bonds of a substance, ~which can be released by~...

And if we were to use this model, `energy carrier disposition` is in an awkward place. If energy is a disposition then practically everything can have energy. Which is the...

> I would tend to drop 'renewable energy' in favor of renewable process, or renewable energy transformation. > > > renewable energy transformation: "A renewable energy transformation is an energy...

And using the vision of energy profile in the previous comment, the definition of Power used by the colleagues in Buffalo fits almost perfectly https://github.com/CommonCoreOntology/CommonCoreOntologies/blob/a9e8c72eda3e01acbfca3eaaa837b7385d853c8a/EventOntology.ttl#L2256C1-L2263C34 ``` ### http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/Power cco:Power rdf:type...

I could go longer but I think I will wrap this up here, here is a TL;DR: - There are 3 definitions of energy that play a role in our...

> Ok, this PR is already huge. I will add further things later, once the open questens are discussed and open it for review now. This will take a while...