Are Technology subclasses needed?

[akleinau]

Description of the issue

Are subclasses of Technology like EnergyGeneratorTechnology or EnergyTransferTechnology needed? Or is just Technology enough?
@stap-m raised this question in #86.

Ideas of solution

Delete all subclasses?

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 an annotation
• classes should arise from concepts rather than from words
• class or property names should follow the UpperCamelCase

[akleinau]

as discussed in february ontohack:

• new Technology def: A Technology is an information content entity that specifies how to create an artificial object.
• delete or move technology subclasses, depending on Restructure class Generator  #173

[akleinau]

I forgot to change the def, pull request will follow soon

[akleinau]

@jannahastings if Technology is an information content entity this will move it to oeo-model, is that still in line with our modules?

[jannahastings]

If we go with that definition, then the name should be changed to "technology specification" rather than just technology. But it does not have to move to oeo-model, as we can have information content entities in the other modules as well? I think, to me, it would make more sense to keep it in the oeo-physical...?

[akleinau]

@jannahastings I agree, so how do we proceed, do we make a new module just for one class? that would seem wasteful. Copy and paste the class direcly inside oeo-physical?

[jannahastings]

Both are possible, but I vote let's make a new module just for one class, it's not a big deal with robot and we may add more in the future. We could call it "iao-minimal"?

[akleinau]

ok, then let's do that

[akleinau]

I'll make a pull request