make `supply grid` and `transportation networt` should be subclasses of `(supply) system`?

[stap-m]

Description of the issue

We should discuss whether or not supply grid and transportation networt should be subclasses of (supply) system.

This is the current hierarchy:

Current definitions: system: A material entity consisting of multiple components that are causally integrated. supply grid: A supply grid is an object aggregate of systematically connected artificial objects that can work as a supply system. transport network: A transport network is an object aggregate of transport network components that enables the transport of people and/or goods.

The definition of supply grid already suggest a relation to supply system. If we don't make it a subclass, we should add axioms, respectively. Also, the terms "systematically connected" and "causally integrated" seems similar to me. The definition of transport network does not use this terminology. However, a network that enables something is also "systematically connected" or "causally integrated" from my perspective.

Ideas of solution

• Make supply grid and transportation networt subclasses of (supply) system
• Update the definition of transportation networt

Workflow checklist

• [ ] I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution
• [ ] I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository
• [ ] The goal of this ontology is clear to me

I am aware that

• [ ] every entry in the ontology should have a definition
• [ ] classes should arise from concepts rather than from words

[l-emele]

Let's have a bit broader look: object aggregate has in BFO the following examples of use:

your collection of Meissen ceramic plates.; the aggregate of blood cells in your body; an organization is an aggregate whose member parts have roles of specific types (for example in a jazz band, a chess club, a football team); a symphony orchestra; the aggregate of bearings in a constant velocity axle joint; the restaurants in Palo Alto; defined via attributive delimitations such as: the patients in this hospital; a swarm of bees is an aggregate of members who are linked together through natural bonds; a collection of cells in a blood biobank.; defined by fiat: the aggregate of members of an organization; the nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere; defined through physical attachment: the aggregate of atoms in a lump of granite; defined through physical containment: the aggregate of molecules of carbon dioxide in a sealed container

I think, we system falls very well into this list and we thus should make it a subclass of object aggregate, then all subclasses of system will also be subclasses of object aggregate: ~A material entity consisting~ A system is an object aggregate that consists of multiple components that are causally integrated.

If we do so, I am fine with making supply grid a subclass of supply system if we change the definition to: A supply grid is ~an object aggregate~ a supply system of systematically connected artificial objects ~that can work as a supply system~.

Then, I am also fine with making transportation network a subclass of system: A transport network is ~an object aggregate~ system of transport network components that enables the transport of people and/or goods.

[stap-m]

I see your point. However, the definition of object aggregate is rather vague. The examples above suggest, that the parts of the object aggregate are of the same "kind" (all of them are cells, persons, restaurants...). This is not necessarily (or usually?) the case in a system. Furthermore, we import system from RO. Therefore, I'd argue not to touch system.

[l-emele]

The examples above suggest, that the parts of the object aggregate are of the same "kind" (all of them are cells, persons, restaurants...). This is not necessarily (or usually?) the case in a system.

If we follow that interpretation, then critical infrastructure should become a system, too.