Hi guys,
I'm back again, by the way Onno: from my
first operation, the second comes in January.
To Victor:
Almost by definition one cannot be consistent on all the aspects of a template when writing some 240 of them over a period of time.
But yes, you are right, I will correct any inconsitencies on this subject of name giving.
But to some extent I have been consistent, in that using a name like your
hasUrClassOfPossessor has only been used in cases where there would be a possibility for confusion. If you want all property names to be unique, then follow my suggestion to extend them with a number, such as
hasUrClass067 like GMail does with names (e.g.
John.Smith085@gmail.com).
To Onno:
Please don't ask catch-questions and tell me straight away what you really want to know.
To Victor:
I do think that Ambient Temperature is a Property, because I can use a thermometer to measure it. The point here is that the value cannot be entered and has to be obtained at a point of measurement. And even when there is no thermometer, the ambient temperature is of course there.
On the other hand, your suggestion of a PropertySpace is a good one, because during design we only want to indicate that the temperature is that of the air around the object, and that is, over a longer period in time, a PropertySpace. Since the definition of a ClassOfIndirectProperty is:
A <class_of_indirect_property> is a <class_of_relationship> that indicates that a member of the <class_of_individual> can possess a member of the <class_of_property> as an <indirect_property> of this type.
we see here an example of an exceptional occurance of where that "member of the <class_of_property>" is the "ambient temperature" PropertyRange that has been defined for the project site.
So, in conclusion, Ambient Temperature is, in this context, a ClassOfIndirectProperty where the
hasBasePropertyType property points at the ID of the Ambient Temperature Range that you have defined for the project site.
To Onno:
The fact that engineers, and engineering programs for that matter, haven't adapted to the new era of 15926 is a pity, and their company will suffer from it when the lifecycle information has to be turned over to the owner/operator. But don't sacrifice principles for the sloppiness of others.