PhysicalObject in SAREF ?
From TR 103 781:
There is:
- Class s4envi:PhysicalObject, aligned with the DUL top-level ontology.
- Class s4bldg:PhysicalObject, aligned with the DUL top-level ontology. Exact same definition as in SAREF4ENVI, but different axiomatization: s4envi:PhysicalObject ⊑ ∀ s4envi:isContainedIn . s4envi:PhysicalObject, while s4bldg:PhysicalObject ⊑ ∀ s4bldg:isContainedIn. (s4bldg:PhysicalObject ⊔ s4bldg:BuildingSpace)
- SAREF4INMA reuses s4bldg:PhysicalObject
- OP s4bldg:contains has a different definition than s4envi:contains.
- OP s4bldg:isContainedIn has a different definition than s4envi:isContainedIn.
SAREF4INMA reuses some classes from SAREF4BLDG such as s4bldg:Building, s4bldg:BuildingSpace, s4bldg:PhysicalObject, and specialize them as s4inma:Factory, s4inma:Area, s4inma:Site, s4inma:ProductionEquipment.This is a case for promoting some of the most generic SAREF4BLDG concepts to SAREF Core.
Proposal:
- promote saref:PhysicalObject to SAREF Core.
- explicit that saref:Device is a subclass of saref:PhysicalObject.
Open question: should saref:FeatureOfInterest be a subclass of saref:PhysicalObject ? I assume this would be too restrictive.