I would like to suggest that we allow bot:adjacentElement to also be used as a relationship between two elements since it is probably quite confusing for most people that this is disallowed now and I think we should strive towards having an easily understandable representation of the building.
Current state:bot:adjacentElement is anrdfs:subClassOfbot:hasElement.
bot:hasElement has the rdfs:domain constrained to bot:Zone.
Therefore using bot:adjacentElement between two elements would infer 1) the bot:hasElement relationship between the two and 2) that the subject element is a bot:Zone.
Suggestion:
Either the bot:adjacentElement should no longer be an rdfs:subClassOfbot:hasElement or the rdfs:domain constraint should be removed on the bot:hasElement. I am in favour of the latter since this makes the ontology less restrictive and easier to use.
I would like to suggest that we allow
bot:adjacentElementto also be used as a relationship between two elements since it is probably quite confusing for most people that this is disallowed now and I think we should strive towards having an easily understandable representation of the building.Current state:
bot:adjacentElementis anrdfs:subClassOfbot:hasElement.bot:hasElementhas therdfs:domainconstrained tobot:Zone. Therefore usingbot:adjacentElementbetween two elements would infer 1) thebot:hasElementrelationship between the two and 2) that the subject element is abot:Zone.Suggestion: Either the
bot:adjacentElementshould no longer be anrdfs:subClassOfbot:hasElementor therdfs:domainconstraint should be removed on thebot:hasElement. I am in favour of the latter since this makes the ontology less restrictive and easier to use.