Item talk:Q760

1. From the sub-concept "mining support service activities" were removed the following aliases:

concessions for exploration - concession for exploration - exploration concession - exploration authorisation - concessions for exploitation - exploitation concession - exploitation authorisation - extraction concession - extraction authorisation - exploration permit - extraction permit - mining permit - mining authorisation - quarrying authorisation - quarrying permit - quarrying concession - extraction rights - drilling license - mining license - quarrying license - authorisation license - exploration license - exploitation license mining concession

2. All those items refer to authorisation or licenses needed for operating in the economic activity.

3. Those concept are relevant in the (climate) legal vocabulary and probably are crossing all sectors.

4. It might be needed to include a new concept capturing those items like "administrative authorisation".

How to classify the extraction of materials with mixed composition?

1. There are some extractive activities that involve the extraction of materials with complex nature or composition.

2. E.g., the extraction of stones could generally be classified as a non-metallic mineral extraction.

3. However, there are less common types of rocks (e.g. volcanic) containing metallic elements like iron or magnesium, and therefore it is not entirely accurate to label them as "non-metallic".

4. In the concept store, "extraction of stones" was finally classified as subconcept of "extraction of non-metallic mineral"(Q1435). But might be necessary to review and discuss some of these distinctions.

5. At the end the question is about how precise we need to be and how technically accurate must be our concepts.

Challenges in classifying some extractive activities when there are objects of complex nature

1. As we needed to be stricter with aliases to properly classify activities, we had to make some distinctions.

2. Those distinctions required to be more strick with the use of language and some precisions (e.g. "natural asphalt).

3. Although we migh have a more accurate list of aliases for extractive activities, the vocabulary used might not capture how legal text are writen or how our user search for concepts. E.g.:

 3.1. Eg., asphalt can be natural or derived from petroleum treatment processes.
 3.2. Only "natural asphalt", a type of "natural bitumen" (Q1452), is truly "extracted".
 3.3. It is questionable whether we can talk about "extraction" for asphalt produced from crude petroleum refinery processes.
 3.4. Classic synonyms for extractive activities (e.g., "mining asphalt" or "quarrying asphalt") do not make sense for asphalt produced from petroleum refinery activities.
 3.5. Asphalt produced from refynery process might be part of the manufacturing process.
 3.6. To reflect those distinctions we needed to talk about "natural asphalt".
 3.7. The query is: do our user search "natural asphalt" or just "asphalt"?
 3.8. As another example, it is same situation with "fertilisers", as there are natural and synthetic ones. 
 3.9. For the case of synthetic fertilisers, is it right talk about "extraction of fertiliser"? 
 3.10. If it is right talking about "extraction of fertiliser" for synthetic ones, then "extraction of fertilisers" could be classified at the same time as a sub-concept in the "extractive sector" and the "manufacturing sector".

4. Similar questions might arise with other synthetic elements.

5. Some other elements have a complex nature.

 5.1. For example, stone extraction could involve metallic or non-metallic stones. 
 5.2. But again, making distinction between metallic stones and non-metallic stones might not reflect the needs of our users.

6. These distinctions are not always relevant in regulatory vocabulary.

 6.1. It is unlikely that regulators will distinguish "natural asphalt" or use the label "natural asphalt" in legal texts.

7. Users probably will not make such highly technical distinctions.