Double counting "storage" in Upstream category?

[fershad]

The upstream (embodied) impacts of servers and storage are already captured in the "Hardware" section of the Upstream category:

Servers and Storage hardware
Servers and Storage Hardware
Servers, storage systems, and data centre infrastructure installed on-premise. This assumes that the organisation has purchased this hardware directly.

In the "Content and data" section, storage gets referenced again:

Storage: resources required for storing content and data.

Is this a doubling up, or does the storage referred to in the "Content and data" section capture a different part of the upstream impact stack?

[cronky]

Good call out, we worked with quite a few organisations (like media / broadcast production companies) where they said content is significant and it isn't always about that it is stored on servers. This could cover the upstream production of content or data much like software.

So the storage hardware upstream refers to the hardware/
Content and data refers to the activities and resources that went into producing that content / data not the hardware it's stored on.

Hopefully that makes sense? Happy to discuss further. It probably partly invalidates some of the out of scope box on the taxonomy diagram?

[hanopcan]

I think this is something we can address in v0.2, where we've agreed to work on a set of use cases and worked examples to explain questions like this.