My issue is an abstract one, about how to understand the implications of the SWEET hierarchy.
For example, SWEET has a human ontology, http://sweetontology.net/human. Inside that ontology are several definitions which are in some sense related to humans, but the relationship is not crystal clear:
The first three are subclasses of energyEndUse, which seems clear enough. But the presence of the terms in the human ontology, without any stated relationship to the human ontology, is relatively meaningless. (This term would still apply to other 'customers' of the energyEndUse, like commercial spaces, laboratory spaces with animals, or greenhouses. Why is it in this ontology file?)
The fourth is similarly ambiguous, it is a subclass of Activity which is arguably nonsensical. Unmanned is a property of a thing (like a vehicle), not of a human.
So I think this request/complaint is that the location of each SWEET term needs to be semantically meaningful, and needs to be reflected in the semantic statements about the term. Everything that's in the human ontology should have a semantic relationship to the human concept, directly or indirectly, in order for its classification to be meaningful.
My issue is an abstract one, about how to understand the implications of the SWEET hierarchy.
For example, SWEET has a human ontology, http://sweetontology.net/human. Inside that ontology are several definitions which are in some sense related to humans, but the relationship is not crystal clear:
The first three are subclasses of energyEndUse, which seems clear enough. But the presence of the terms in the human ontology, without any stated relationship to the human ontology, is relatively meaningless. (This term would still apply to other 'customers' of the energyEndUse, like commercial spaces, laboratory spaces with animals, or greenhouses. Why is it in this ontology file?)
The fourth is similarly ambiguous, it is a subclass of Activity which is arguably nonsensical. Unmanned is a property of a thing (like a vehicle), not of a human.
So I think this request/complaint is that the location of each SWEET term needs to be semantically meaningful, and needs to be reflected in the semantic statements about the term. Everything that's in the human ontology should have a semantic relationship to the human concept, directly or indirectly, in order for its classification to be meaningful.