If we understand Hans proposal verbatim, it is also worth to notice that each OIM ESOC consists from information about one and only one item of the system. It is not correct to say that several elements of a pipeline are elements of an OIM1. This restriction looks unnecessary to me, an approach can ...

Onno,

I think we have to come to voting sooner or later.

According to the proposal at http://www.15926.org/publications/general-discussions/class-model/index.htm classes like PIPELINE VALVE or NOZZLE PIPING POINT can not be called "OIM components". Real OIM components are "temporary" subclasses of a special set of UrClasses, which are in turn subclasses o...

:( We have in Part 8 meta http://standards.iso.org/iso/ts/15926/-8/ed-1/tech/reference-data/metadata# What's wrong with it? Why do we see http://standards.iso.org/iso/15926/tech/reference-data# ? Is this due to some new rules adopted by ISO? Comparing: http://standards.iso.org/iso/15926/tech/referen...

Let's discuss the set of options to vote on and start a vote!

As I can see, the choice should be between Hans proposal of concise new system, Part 8 set (including dm) and my proposal, which is essentially Part 8 with dm replaced with old PCA namespace.

Yes, I think it is much better. Sorry, I'm probable overreacting on namespace issues these days

I understand that "ex is some local namespace for the example", but please, don't make examples where templates are in p7tpl: and both role identifiers and project data are from the same ex: namespace!

The template for the new information has the specialization of the UrClass already included. Yes - if we add hasUrClass role to all templates. If not - we can use this new template together with old-style templates. "The only use for a template with that name would be to enable folks who have an in...

Hans, About the document: First of all, I don't like the use of Powerset term in this context (and in that discussion). It is because of "if and only if" clause. Let's consider PUMP TYPE ClassOfClassOfIndividual. If you call it a powerset of PUMP ClassOfIndividual, then you are implying that _any_ s...

Hans, I'll review the document and post an answer. Meanwhile I've to say that we don't need sandbox namespaces for dm: and tm:, we've to use standardized URIs to ease work with our definitions. We can define new metadata in our sandbox meta: namespace, but we've to use part 8 meta: for those already...