Separation of "intrinsic" vs. "management" concerns

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Description of the issue

There are two main concerns mixed in the ontology: 

(i) "static" aspects (eg., intrinsic characteristics of the instruments or
its composition);

(ii) more "dynamic" aspects in particular related with data management
(eg., deployments, change of status of particular sensor instances). 

We need to keep a clear distinction of these concerns. If we want both, we
should consider separating them into different ontologies (with the
"dynamic" one importing/referencing the other). 

Note: I'm putting "static" and "dynamic" in quotes because there may be
better names for these two concerns.

Note that most elements in the current ontology are for case (i), while
others (actually very few), like the hasFunctionalityStatus and
hasDeployedMedium properties for systems, and the Deployment class are for
more "dynamic" data management purposes, case (ii).


Please provide any relevant information/links below

Section "Intrinsic vs. management properties" in
http://marinemetadata.org/community/teams/ontdevices/agendas/am20090721

Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 19 May 2010 at 11:27