Re: [sdw] Should Platform be a subclass of System? (#1411)

@KathiSchleidt The battery is just an example I used to illustrate the problem. Sure you could do that for the power subsystem, the comm subsystem, etc. I'm definitely interested in adding new subsystem types to the SSN ontology. It's fine to allow this if one wishes to do so but I'm not sure forcing everybody to brake things out at that level of granularity (just so you can provide simple properties like battery capacity) is going to help adoption. Plus, if we did that, would you also need to create a separate battery subsystem if one wants to describe the battery inside a sensor?

Even then, there are still properties that only apply to the platform as a whole. Among the other examples I provided, the operating range of a platform (e.g. think maximum temperature and wind speed that a drone can operate with) is not necessarily the intersection of the operating range of its subsystems. If I really wanted to do it this way, I would also have to create a subsystem for the airframe of the drone, for example, because it also contributes to the capabilities of the overall platform. At some point, this is madness, IMHO it just makes much more sense to treat the platform as a system itself (i.e. the airframe IS the platform, it's not "hosted" by the platform!).

I still don't really understand the push back. What is the fundamental problem with the platform also being a system? (again this is only in SSN, not in pure SOSA).


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by alexrobin
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1411#issuecomment-1554323631 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 19 May 2023 09:54:21 UTC