Usage of `participates in`

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

Currently, we have a pattern 'artifical object' 'participates in' some process. Example of this pattern are:

• 'energy transformation unit' 'participates in' some 'energy transformation'
• vehicle 'participates in' some transport

In OEO dev meeting 46, @fabianneuhaus mentioned that is not a good pattern as the objects not necessarily participate all the time. A power plant e.g. can be switched off for some time and does not participate in an energy transformation while switched off.

Ideas of solution

If you already have ideas for the solution describe them here

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]

Same problem in issue #1494:

This is where it gets tricky. Since the EVs are mobile, the modes in which they transfer energy vary depending on their operation. In the case of vehicle charging/vehicle-to-grid the processes can only happen when the vehicle is connected to a charging station, so it must be sitting idle. This means that there is either a parallel process of a vehicle being connected or we allow a energy transfer with no actual energy being transferred ( plug-in process) . See diagram.

[l-emele]

One option to solve this is to delete most of the thing 'participates in' some process axioms and replace them with process 'has participant' some thing axioms.

[l-emele]

I see three thumbs up for my last proposal so I think we can implement this. :rocket:

Any volunteers for implementation? Maybe @u-mueller? Else I can do it.

[l-emele]

This issue is ready for implementation, but nothing happened in the last month. So I will start implementing now.

[l-emele]

I tried to implement this, but looking in specific axioms this seemingly easy solution causes some serious headaches. For example, we currently have the axiom bicycle 'participates in' some 'passenger transport'. But we can not state 'passenger transport' 'has participant' some bicycle as there are also types of passenger transport like public transport without bicycles.

If we want to bicycle 'participates in' some 'passenger transport' we need a subclass where we then can axiomatise bicycle 'participates in' some 'biking'. And if this example is not an exception, but more the general rule as there are many instances.

[stap-m]

If we want to bicycle 'participates in' some 'passenger transport' we need a subclass where we then can axiomatise bicycle 'participates in' some 'biking'. And if this example is not an exception, but more the general rule as there are many instances.

'participates in' some 'passenger transport' is not necessarily wrong, some does not mean all.

[l-emele]

If we want to bicycle 'participates in' some 'passenger transport' we need a subclass where we then can axiomatise bicycle 'participates in' some 'biking'. And if this example is not an exception, but more the general rule as there are many instances.

'participates in' some 'passenger transport' is not necessarily wrong, some does not mean all.

Sorry, seems I got confused. We want to avoid axioms like bicycle 'participates in' some 'passenger transport' and turn them around. We cannot axiomatise 'passenger transport' 'has participant' some bicycle. We need here an axiom biking 'has participant' some biking and this is not possible without a new subclass.

[stap-m]

Proposal from a discussion with @nelekoehler: transport 'has participant' some 'transport participant' 'transport participant' Equivalent to ((person or vehicle or good) and 'has disposition' some 'transport participant disposition') transport participant disposition: disposition of a person, good or vehicle to take part in a transport process.