Re: Proposed Subclasses for Thing

Thanks for your suggestion. We are not trying to create a high-fidelity
model of everything, but rather stay focussed on large scale applications
working with data shared online. Can you say a little more about the
applications that motivate these distinctions? It might be that some
tidying beneath /Place could help...

Dan

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, 12:40 George Michaels, <gdm@trovestar.com> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> I am frequently hitting limitations in the 'Thing' class which is my
> primary area of interest.
>
> To start with I would propose a subclass for Thing called 'Construction'
> which would have two primary subclasses: 'mobile' and 'static'.
>
> Examples of static Constructions would be highways, lighthouses and
> bridges.  Yes, these could be deemed places rather than things, but in my
> mind, because they are constructed, rather than geographical in nature,
> they are things, unlike say, the Grand Canyon, or Australia.
>
> Examples of mobile Constructions would be ships, planes, satellites,
> elevators.  Some of these things could be 'ProductModels' but I have been
> trying to wrestle with shoe-horning them into the ProductModel and it seems
> a bit like a square peg in a round hole.  Is the USS Constitution really a
> 'ProductModel' - I think not.  How about the ISS - a product?  Not really.
>
> Am I thinking about this all wrong and should these general types of
> objects belong somewhere else rather than 'Thing'?  If I am correct, I am
> certainly willing to do the leg-work of proposing relevant taxonomy
> appropriate properties for each object.
>
> Please advise with either 'you have your head inserted in your posterior'
> or 'yes - good idea - here is what you need to do to move forward'.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> George Michaels
> Founder, TroveStar LLC
> gdm@trovestar.com
> www.trovestar.com
>