You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 15 Next »

The core concepts include an ontology (a view of what exists), an epistemology (a view of how we know things) and a semiology (a view of how things are represented). 

We work from the assumption that thinking well about these aspects in the beginning will enable us to develop software, systems and processes that will not easily become redundant. This does not mean one must be able to plan every detail of how things will develop in future - it is in a sense the opposite: If the basic structure is comprehensive yet flexible and can incorporate learning and development, the chances of becoming redundant in the future is low.

This means we are looking for a deeper description of what climate action and accounting is than just a description of how things currently are. We are more looking for a description of how things will be in 100 years from now. We attempt to break down the phenomenon of climate action and the process of climate accounting to its most essential structure and use that as a basis for designing representation thereof in software. 

Generic formulation of the accounting process 

An agent deliberately engages in an activity.

The activity impacts state that are considered valuable. In our case the planet is the object of concern. 

Accounting is the presentation of claims about the outcome of the activities and the nature and magnitude of the impact that it had/s on states that are considered valuable.

A claim is made up of representations of the key aspects and dimensions of agents, activities and states as well as representations about the claim itself.

Some claims are proofs. A proof contains all the information needed to evaluate its veracity. Claims are often contructed as from other claim. 

Standards prescribe the content and structure of such claims and allow third parties to assess the veracity of thereof.

Epistemology 

We know about things through direct participation in them or through representations. 

For things we experience directly we do not need any further assurance that they are true. The cred


 Ontology, epistemology and semiology

Ontology

(What are the 'things' that the system should know about?   

What are the defining properties or characteristics of each 'thing'?)

Epistemology (How will the system get information about these things and their attributes?)Semiology (How will each of the things be represented in the system?)

Agents



  • unique identifier (identity)
  • type (individual or group; if group, what type of group, e.g. organisation, company or movement; auditor)
    • Develop or source a schema describing a minimum set of properties by agents type

An agent asserts their identity though digital signatures

Agents provide proofs of their properties through veriffied credentials 

Other parties can verify agent properties and make claims about their methods and results


Digital signature

Verified credentials 

Validation claim by third party

Activities


  • activity class (e.g. IPCC categories)
  • activity description including objective(s) 
  • location
  • start time
  • end time (possibly)
  • agent
  • input(s) (e.g. materials and energy; consumables and non-consumables)
  • process(es): a process links inputs to products and waste
  • output(s) product + waste

  • objective (experience, create, reduce, destroy, avoid, verify) (optional / not required in all instances)

* An audit is a special type of activity where the input is a claim and the output is an evaluation of that claim.

Ex ante: An agent asserts their intentions to act in a Projet Design Document (PDD) 

Ex post: An agent describe their actions in a Projet Design Document (PDD) 

The activity and its results and impacts are documented  by the agent at intervals in a monitoring report (MR)

  • unique identifier

Consider a token for an activity that contains all the essential elements in column 1. Such a token must have a time limit and proof of life requirements (e.g. minimum process data feed to confirm it is ongoing)

States

  • state definition (How to decide relevance?: Checlklist?)
  • location and temportal extent (either objective or referential)
  • metrics refereing to parameters
  • type (actual [measured] or baseline [counterfactual])

*State as in environmental state (not political state)

Indicators for states

Indicators delivered by agents via PDDs and MRs

  • unique identifier
  • Impact claim per state
Indicators
  • name
  • definition
  • unit of measure
  • rationale
  • calculation
  • credibility

  • unique identifier
Standards
  • name
  • author(s)
  • applicability - type of agent, type of activity, state
  • requirements (e.g. reporting requirements, calculation requirements)
  • version
  • method(s)
  • precision
  • accuracy / std error
  • emission factors (defaults)

  • unique identifier



Someone or something gathers data

  • observes a phenomenon using some instrument

Someone or something presents data as a claim

  • A claim concerns at least one property of an agent or activity or one paramater of a state and is accompanied by metadata (the instrument, agent and sampling frame)

Someone or something evaluates the claim


Should there be an event class? An event is like an activity but without the intention of an agent. An accident is an event but it is not an activity. 

(Where do impact claims fit in? Standards contain requirements for claims and claims are made up of indicators and assertions)

An impact claim (a state change claim)

  • agent 
  • activity
  • "before" state for every every environment and aspect of the state under consideration
  • "after" state for every every environment and aspect of the state under consideration
  • causal connection between activity and the resultant state (e.g. scope 1 (primary/secondary), scope 2 or scope 3)
  • standard followed


For discussion: Where do we list the natural processes that lead to climate change?

(emission factors are indicators)


  • No labels