Ditch OWL:Thing = god? SemWeb 2.0

Hi all,

I'm still befuddled as to whether my analysis has merit or if there's
something basic I'm missing.

I noted a concept sometime ago about "human centric web" or "human centric
AI", etc.  (Early credentials CG work).

Ontology Dev environments like protege use https://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl
therefore anything modelled after it is a subclass of owl:thing

I started on a personhood ontology
https://github.com/WebCivics/ontologies/blob/master/personhood.ttl

Yet, now I'm trying to do some modelling for consciousness & various
aspects relating to human agency, where the idea of structuring it all as a
subclass of owl:thing, churns my stomach.

I'm thinking about forming a broader upper ontology, and thereafter the
implications.

I'm also considerate of DIDs, which, from my point of view was always about
ontologies on DLTs (particularly commons), understanding - making tools,
isn't necessarily about a particular usecase / implementation structure.

So, thinking is; if there's a time to break owl:thing (providing diversity)
perhaps you hat time is now?

Or am I missing something simple / fundamental, etc.

The underlying consideration is impacted by modalities, whereby there may
be a lack of diverse options available; if the tools aren't present to do
it, distorting the wave function, via "things", perhaps unnecessarily /
impactfully,  imo.

Timothy Holborn.