Propose new environmental consideration information for ML models

[mrutkows]

The fact that datasets used to train AI models are increasingly large and take an enormous amount of energy (and indirectly produce large CO2 emissions) to develop, train and run has come to the forefront. This PR contains proposed additions to the "modelCard" type to account for these considerations when selecting/utilizing a model.

• Adds ModelCardConsiderations.environmentalConsiderations
  this fixes Propose new environmental consideration information for ML models #396
• Adds OrganizationalEntity.address

---

TODO

• modify JSON schema
• modify XML schema
• modify protobuf schema
• add examples & test resources

[mrutkows]

Note: some sources use "CO2e" and some "CO2eq"... gov. agencies tend to use the former, where model providers often use the latter.

For example:

• https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/14/2022-24569/federal-acquisition-regulation-disclosure-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-related-financial
• https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/us-long-term-strategy.pdf
• https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-2-70b-chat-hf#hardware-and-software

Articles often state that they "can be used interchangeably":

• https://ecometrica.com/assets/GHGs-CO2-CO2e-and-Carbon-What-Do-These-Mean-v2.1.pdf

[mrutkows]

Another reference from tc-54: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/us-long-term-strategy.pdf

[mrutkows]

@jkowalleck @stevespringett
NOTE: we need to add "externalReferences' and "properties" where applicable

[mrutkows]

My presentation from the 03-07-2024 Ecma TC-54 call:
2024-03-07 ML-BOM Environmental Consideration Proposal - Rutkowski.pdf

[jkowalleck]

@mrutkows is this PR related to an existing issue?
If not, please create an issue that describes the reasoning, use cases, edge cases, out-of-scopes, and such.

[jkowalleck]

this issue claims to solve #396

well, since the #396 does in no way describe a problem yet, I cannot see how this PR intends to solve it.
@mrutkows , please take the 10 minute to describe the actual problem, before I take the two hours to actually review the "solution"

[prabhu]

Could we make this a bit more generic so that it could be attached to services, manufacturers, etc? Initially, it could be a type in external reference since the analysis is usually very specific to the needs of a particular organization.

[stevespringett]

@mrutkows I think we have consensus to use the current model card approach to adding support for environmental concerns and then in v1.7, we can expand that support to every component and service.

What is the status of this PR? We likely have one week to flush this out, otherwise it will need to be postponed to v1.7.

[jkowalleck]

I still have questions and concerns. I vote for postponing and continued discussions in #396
If the data is needed earlier, we still could create CDX properties for this - and ses how it is adopted.

[jkowalleck]

re: #395 (comment)
@mrutkows , Vinod and I had a discussion and will work on having this moved forward, having this part of 1.6

[jkowalleck]

@mrutkows here is the neeed fix for the examples: mrutkows#3

as soon as this is merged, we should be golden.

[mrutkows]

@mrutkows here is the neeed fix for the examples: mrutkows#3

as soon as this is merged, we should be golden.

Thanks Jan!!!

BTW, there is still something wrong in the XSD in that I should have an energyConsumptionsType (plural) as well as the current energyConsumptionType to account for the corresponding anonymous type in the JSON schema... I will commit that change shortly.

[jkowalleck]

looks good overall.

[stevespringett]

This looks good @mrutkows . Thanks for all the hard work on this. If you can sort out the other discrepancy, we can get this approved.