Since our new member emmagia brought this up in the topic 'acronyms' I want to give this topic of the template model another kick. We need to discuss the template model as it is defined in Part 8. To me, as voiced by me already in 2012, that model is flawed. I propose to discuss http://www.15926.org...

@emmagia - This topic is simply about acronyms, nothing more.

The classification relationships that give the whole-life individual its aspects, through transitive inheritance of its temporal parts, [HT] Most information is defined in ways that are not that of classification. That's why we have templates. And the transitivity of the relationship (ClassOf)Tempo...

Here is the code as I think it should be: <!-- Style Class declaration --> <dm:ClassOfInformationPresentation rdf:about="MyEquipmentLayerStyle"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;Class"/> </dm:ClassOfInformationPresentation> <!-- Style Class definition --> <tpl:PresentationDetails rdf:about="T07184c90-21...

@Andy
xsi:nil isn't valid RDF, unfortunately.

You might add the use of an unrealistic number, such as '99999'.

I don't know why scales should be NULL. On each project that is well known.

Now we have reached this point, I want to re-emphasize the need for generic patterns. In this case these generic patterns would be ClassifiedPartOfClassOfAssembly and ClassifiedPartOfAssembly, or something like that. ClassifiedPartOfClassOfAssembly(OOI, PartType) ↔ ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject(OOI...

Yes, that is what Andy said as well, and what I did in http://www.15926.org/publications/templates/TIPs/TIP0009.htm . But that means that those extra OOIs, that are not represented in the source software, have to be generated in some way, and that seems to be the problem. Any OOI could, in an RDF en...

Yep: T0002C(OOI, ActuatorType) ↔ ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject(OOI) ∧ ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject(Actuator) ∧ ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject(ActuatorType) ∧ ClassOfAssemblyDefinition(OOI, Actuator, RDS_new_0007, RDS_new_0007) ∧ SpecializationOfClassOfIndividual(Actuator, ActuatorType) ∧ Speciali...

Aha, now I see! That is indeed kind of stupid of me. It should read: T0002C(OOI, ActuatorType) ↔ ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject(OOI) ∧ ∃ActuatorType( ClassOfInanimatePhysicalObject(ActuatorType) ∧ ClassOfAssemblyDefinition(OOI, ActuatorType, RDS_new_0007, RDS_new_0007) ∧ SpecializationOfClassOfIndiv...

Victor, It is interesting that you say that Acuator Type is the "target" (whatever is meant with that) of this TIP. It shows how ill-defined TIPs are, because to me that target is the actuated device (e.g. control valve), with as a second possibility the actuator itself. The "parameter" Actuator Typ...