Issues found in CMNS review

[tw-osthus]

cmns-prd:product has an incomplete or misleading definition

The definition defines product as a "commerically distributed good that ...." which strongly suggests that it is a subclass of cmns-prd:good, but it is not, and the explantory note explicitly mentions "services, and in some cases rights" as products besides goods.

[tw-osthus]

definition cmns-prts:agent role An agent role is an "agentive role that is played by an agent, typically in the context of some situation." is circular on "agentive".

"typically " implies a usage or example and should not be part of the definition. The definition should be simply "role that is played by an agent"

[tw-osthus]

cmns-prd:capability has a weak definiition

"ability to perform a particular type of work, that may ... " "may" is not a binding restriction so cannot act a discriminator to distinguish capabilities from abilities. "particular type of work" suggest a classification of work. Work is undefined so the definition is incomplete and lacks some necessary criteria. I would define work as a directed process towards an objective or following some specification, otherwise there is no difference between ability and capability.

Tools and equipments are having capabilities as well in the scientific context.

[tw-osthus]

cmns-qtu:has argument and its synonym has independent variable are not synonyms, not all arguments to functions are independent variables in their meaning in mathematics.

cmns-qtu:has argument is not a sub-property of cmns-qtu:has quantity value in the usual understanding in mathematics, as many arguments of functions, or formulas are not instances of quantity values. An argument to a function can be a literal, a variable, a collection, a distribution and probably many more. So to someone not knowing about the sub-property relation, restricting it to quantity values, it is very likely to be used in an inconsistent way.

This also applies to has denominator, has factor, has numerator, which can be applied to numbers, and more than to quantity values.

These properties at a minimum need an explicit scope note, that they are not to be applied in the general mathematical meaning, but only in the scope of measurements and quantitation.

[ElisaKendall]

cmns-prd:product has an incomplete or misleading definition

The definition defines product as a "commerically distributed good that ...." which strongly suggests that it is a subclass of cmns-prd:good, but it is not, and the explantory note explicitly mentions "services, and in some cases rights" as products besides goods.

@tw-osthus The missing concepts are included in the ontology from which this was derived - I can bring them in but was attempting to simplify. If I bring them over, then a product will be equivalent to the union of good, service and right (but there is a lot of legal baggage around rights so I'll have to simplify that to address this). Do you think it is important to bring that stuff in for IDMP?

[ElisaKendall]

definition cmns-prts:agent role An agent role is an "agentive role that is played by an agent, typically in the context of some situation." is circular on "agentive".

"typically " implies a usage or example and should not be part of the definition. The definition should be simply "role that is played by an agent"

Done - definitely better. We reused a definition from FIBO which needed that simplification.

[ElisaKendall]

cmns-prd:capability has a weak definiition

"ability to perform a particular type of work, that may ... " "may" is not a binding restriction so cannot act a discriminator to distinguish capabilities from abilities. "particular type of work" suggest a classification of work. Work is undefined so the definition is incomplete and lacks some necessary criteria. I would define work as a directed process towards an objective or following some specification, otherwise there is no difference between ability and capability.

Tools and equipments are having capabilities as well in the scientific context.

@tw-osthus Thanks again - I think I've fixed this is a way that you will be ok with, replacing part of the definition with your revision and moving part of it to an explanatory note.

[ElisaKendall]

@tw-osthus I've added an explanatory note to hasArgument, but these properties have been used successfully not only in FIBO but in statistical applications at the Bureau of Labor Statistics / Statistics Canada who helped develop the original ontology they came from, and they work for what we need for quantities, which we've been refining with NIST and the OMG SysML community. We also need to be careful about punning - which is why one would use individuals of type quantity value only in cases where you have a constant or some sort of variable you want to define as a nominal or reference for a specific use case, but use the data property, has numeric value, otherwise.

[tw-osthus]

In the context of IDMP I see mainly two different products: The "drug product" and the "reaction product". The former becomes a product in the FIBO sense, at the time the drug product is sold to customers, but it exists as such already during the drug development, so the definition is too narrow. The other is the result of a chemical reaction on which the definition of product does not fit at all. So a concept taken from economics takes the name space in a domain where there are other more common concepts with the same label used. So if we import product I would rename it to "economic product" or something like that, or probably better do not import it.

[ElisaKendall]

@tw-osthus I'll see what I can do to broaden the definition and/or create a higher level concept so that we can still reuse the products and services ontology