Motion to drop gist:Artifact

[marksem]

I am finding Artifact not useful, and pretty redundant. I.e., most (if not all?) domain concepts I need to "ground" in an upper class seem to find a home under other concepts. Feels like Artifact is an aspect-oriented class that we don't need.

[ungricht]

I object to the motion on the grounds that I'm using it for my project metadata ontology. Here's a snippet of my work. Happy to discuss in an Issue Review Meeting.

[uscholdm]

Its a good candidate to get the boot, since its not about what the thing is, but how it came about. That said, what will you do with the newly-to-be orphaned classes such as Component, Network and System? I am also using it for other things for Platts:

QUESTION: can this image be made smaller?

[marksem]

Component feels like a role things, i.e. how something is used. I.e., any hardware component would seem to be Equipment. Any software component would seem to be Intellectual Property.

A data set sounds like a type of collection to me. So does a network... any collection of related things.

Software Application is Intellectual Property (a work, an invention).

System is somewhat ambiguous, as I've discovered at MS. Which do we mean...

1. a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network. "the state railroad system"
2. a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method. "a multiparty system of government" 1 sounds like a collection (a set of things working together for some purpose) 2 sounds also like a collection, but it is a set of principles/procedures.

VersionedItem sounds like a role as well.... if X has version, it is a Versioned Item. That's like a class called NamedItem. where anything with a name goes into it. We can define such classes (indeed OWL is great for this), but in gist itself we usually don't.

[uscholdm]

@rjyounes @marksem What is the status of this?

[rjyounes]

Looks to be still unresolved. I'll add it to the current project so we can discuss it.

The other issues @jtdelany58 referenced are already closed, so not relevant.

[johnwcowan]

Public-domain (i.e. government-made, explicitly abandoned, etc.) software is not any sort of property.

[johnwcowan]

Public domain intellectual property is definitely property. In the U.S., the work product of government employees is in the public domain in the U.S., but not in other countries, where it belongs to the U.S. government.

Public domain real estate is U.S. government property managed by the Bureau of Land Management. It includes grazing rights (mostly in the West) and mineral rights that have been severed from surface rights. It too is property, as it can be privatized at any time.

[rjyounes]

Building and Equipment have other superclasses.

These would end up at the top-level:

• System
• Network
• Content
• IntellectualProperty
• Component

[marksem]

I would argue that Network should have never been an Artifact. A network of rivers or blood vessels or nerves are not "person-made". I would argue same for Components and Systems. So even if we didn't remove Artifact, those 3 would probably need to go to root level anyway.