Wrong Declaration of Enumerations

[VladimirAlexiev]

All enumerations are declared like this:

cim:ControlAreaTypeKind a owl:Class ;
  rdfs:label "ControlAreaTypeKind"@en ;
  eq:Package "Package_CoreEquipmentProfile" ;
  owl:oneOf ( cim:ControlAreaTypeKind.AGC cim:ControlAreaTypeKind.Forecast
    cim:ControlAreaTypeKind.Interchange ) ;
  rdfs:subClassOf cim:Enumeration ;

This means that the owl:Individual values across all enumerations will also obtain type cim:Enumeration.
I think that's not needed because you wouldn't query by it.

Instead, it's better to say:

cim:ControlAreaTypeKind a owl:Class, cim:Enumeration  ;

This way you mark the nature of the class without adding every instance under cim:Enumeration.
Instances already have cims:isenum "True" .

[griddigit-ci]

I am not sure why we have cim:Enumeration. I guess we should not have it but be able to say that a class is an enumeration. Can we do something like to QUDT?
What W3C does when defining an enumeration and how they refer to it as a datatype?

[VladimirAlexiev]

@griddigit-ci

• Which QUDT aspect do you mean?
• Many people use skos:ConceptScheme for a thesaurus, and skos:Concept for its members.
  But then how do you say which concept scheme should be used as values for the specific property?
  • The only ontology I've seen that does that is the ERA Vocabulary
  • It uses a lot of SKOS thesauri: https://linkedvocabs.org/data/era-ontology/3.1.0/doc/resources/skos/
  • Prop documentation eg https://linkedvocabs.org/data/era-ontology/3.1.0/doc/index-en.html#atoCommunicationSystem
    shows "Values from SKOS Concept Scheme: http://data.europa.eu/949/concepts/ato-commsys/ATOCommSystem"
  • in https://linkedvocabs.org/data/era-ontology/3.1.0/doc/ontology.ttl this is expressed as

:atoCommunicationSystem rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
  rdfs:range <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept> ;
  :inSkosConceptScheme <http://data.europa.eu/949/concepts/ato-commsys/ATOCommSystem> ;

• Some people use distinct classes like CIM does.
• A few people even declare the specific classes as subClassOf skos:Concept, and also use a concept scheme (i.e. belt and suspenders approach)

So there's no standard approach. I like the ERA approach, but I think CIM doesn't need to change its approach (distinct classes)