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

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 14 Next »

Accounting for climate impact and action is just a special case of impact accounting. We aim to make our ontology as generic as possible so that it can be applied to all forms and fields of impact accounting (i.e., to all SDGs).

Ontology

Our ontology currently comprises 15 classes and 15 axioms.

Classes

  • thing
    • agent
    • role
      • owner
      • operator
      • claimant
      • auditor
    • environment
    • parameter
    • state
    • activity
    • instrument
    • procedure
      • standard
    • claim

Axioms

1. An agent engages in an activity.
2. An activity impacts an environment.
3. An environment is defined by (interrelated) parameters.
4. A state is the value of a parameter P at time t.
5. A procedure guides an activity.
6. An activity is performed with an instrument.
7. An activity has at least one input.
8. An activity has at least one output.
9. A claim is a statement about a (some specific) thing.
10. A standard guides a claim.
11. An agent enacts a role.
12. An owner (role) is an agent who owns some specific thing.
13. An operator (role) is an agent who operates some specific instrument.
14. A claimant (role) is an agent who makes a claim.
15. An auditor (role) is an agent who audits a claim.

Application of the ontology

TODO: this table is a work in progress and still needs A LOT of work.

Ontology (What are the 'things' that the accounting system should know about? What are the defining properties or characteristics of each 'thing'?)

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

NACE activity codes

IPCC

NAICS


Environments
  • location and temportal extent (either objective or referential)
  • definition (in terms of parameters of interest)


States

  • metrics referring to parameters
  • type (actual [measured] or baseline [counterfactual])

*State as in environmental state (not political state)

Parameters/indicators for states

Parameters/indicators delivered by agents via PDDs and MRs

  • unique identifier
  • impact claim per state
Parameters
  • name
  • definition
  • unit of measure
  • rationale
  • calculation
  • credibility

(Emission factors are parameters, for example.)


  • 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
Claims
  • 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


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. 

Protobuf implementation (example)

UML diagram (hosted on Lucidchart; login required)

Protos

Hedera Hashgraph Guardian implementation (example)

(TODO: add files)

Code resources

GitHub

TODOs and next steps:

  1. For discussion: Where do we list the natural processes that lead to climate change? 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. 
  2. Align the ontology with OWL specifications and syntax.
  3. Expand the second and third… n levels of the ontology, as necessary.
  4. Embed ontology into BFO and its extensions. Some useful resources: BFO 6-part video series
  5. See if we can use any of these ontologies for the spatial classes: W3C, DBpedia 
  6. Can we / should we try to align our ontology with ISDA CDM?
  7. Develop tools for applying the ontology (see our GitHub repo for what has already been done).
  8. Get industry entities to test our ontology & tools. Possible testers:
    1. SAP (https://community.sap.com/topics/sustainability/climate21)


  • No labels