Use the same local name in specializations

In many cases, classes from SAREF core are specialized into an extension.

In some cases, these subclasses use the same local name as the one used in SAREF core.

Maxime is against any specialization with the same local name such as s4agri:Device. He considers that this would be really confusing for the end users.

I see that two situations appear in the extensions:

1. The specialization describes a new type of device. E.g., SAREF4WEAR that defines Wearable. We may have cases where we need to update the extension (e.g., could s4ener:Device be s4ener:Appliance?).
2. The specialization is due to needing further restrictions on the SAREF core class, that are not in SAREF core but do not define a new type of Device. E.g., stating that a device is a geospatial feature. In some cases, these restrictions appear in SAREF core and can be removed from the extension (e.g., SAREF4ENVI), but until they appear there they have to be included in some class. In this case I would prefer to create the subclass with the same name; if not, we will create fictitious types (e.g., EnvironmentDevice, WearableMeasurement, etc.) which may not be good for understandability and usability.