What's the best way for CarbonQL to proceed?

[Sealjay]

          @Oleg-Zhymolokhov / @srini1978 gave an update in OSS WG:

looking for direction for the project to add value to existing projects. Originally planned for an API for those unfamiliar with SCI calculation to generate SCI score in user-friendly way.
Feedback that a lot of companies are using Cloud Carbon Footprint and other APIs. @jawache gave suggestions for analysing this. 1) use sci-ontology project to drive the scope of the architecture of the application. aka: users build app architecture in SCI-Ontology. @navveenb making examples to provide ability to enter data, and sci-ontology would generate a score from that data. 2) CarbonQL to be an SDK that provides set of modules and applications to use these modules; describe the architecture in code, e.g. VMs in Azure or other cloud.
Looking ahead, and figuring out where CarbonQL will have a sweet spot, looking at integration possibilities. SCI-Ontology has GUI for describing software boundary. Chatting with Amadeus at the moment.

Suggest discussing in GitHub to get input.

Originally posted by @Sealjay in #76 (comment)

[jawache]

I'm proposing this evolution, it's still solving exactly the same problem but in a different way (Green-Software-Foundation/if#26)

I can present this at the next Open Source Meeting - I think what I'm proposing is either an evolution of Carbon QL to become an SDK/code-library instead of an API or or a lower level library which we would have had to create to build Carbon QL in the first place. It feels a good place to start at least.