dubious class: planetary manufacturing process

[cmungall]

Looking at 'planetary manufacturing process'

currently we have a 2nd generation only child:

• 'manufacturing process'
  • 'planetary manufacturing process' - A manufacturing process which occurs on a planet.
    • 'lumber production process'

only childs are a bad smell, best to populate siblings so curators can annotate to the same level of granularity

I'm also not keen on unbalanced child classes. Surely almost all instances of manufacturing are on a planet. It looks like there were a few cases of Space_manufacturing

This is not an idle objection, this kind of subclassing can make the ontology much harder to use and maintain. If we have someone curating using ENVO they must be careful to explicitly pick 'planetary manufacturing' when they want to describe a manufacturing instance. It's likely we will end up with an uneven distribution of annotations at both levels. Even though in all likelihood the ones annotated to 'manufacturing' refer to earth-bound processes. Worse, if we add another axis of classification (say 'casting', 'moulding', ...) and someone wants to describe an instance of 'casting' then they are forced to annotate the instance twice to be complete, OR we populate cross-products such as 'planterary casting', 'space casting', etc. It gets very awkward to maintain, populate, use, and query in a reliable fashion.

This class has a comment mentioning #513 but I'm not sure what the relevance is. If there is a genuine use case for this class then we can consider, but I would strongly recommend obsoleting. Users can use a simpler hierarchy, and indicate location (on earth, venus, soyuz, etc) separately

[pbuttigieg]

No objection to obsoleting - this class has served its purpose.