vsso-core:partOfVehicle object property is unnecessary

[jdacoello]

The object property vsso-core:partOfVehicle is unnecessary.
To be able to connect components to the Vehicle (and to replicate the VSS tree), it is enough to add the transitive characteristic to vsso-core:partOf.

[felix-loesch]

Should the Vehicle Component's not have a VehicleComponentRoot element? In my opinion the assignment of Vehicle Component to a concrete vehicle instance (e.g. BMW 320 with specific VIN) should be done at instance level.

[jdacoello]

VehicleComponentRoot is a concept that doesn't exist in the current vsso-core.

So far, there were:

• partOf
  • According to the definition: "This property is used to built a partOf hierarchy of VehicleComponents instances."
• partOfVehicle
  • According to the definition: "This properties conncects VehicleComponents instances with an instance of a Vehicle."

In any case, the domain and range defined in vsso-core act on instances only.

If you look at the .ttl generated from vss, the property partOfVehicle is not even used. This is something that can be inferred just by adding the transitive characteristic. In other words, the intended function of this (extra) property can be easily handle with SPARQL.

Other details can be shaped once the specific vehicle properties and/or components are changed to be instances, as it is discussed in #22.

[danielwilms]

We need an example on how it could be used and decide based on that. partOf and partOfVehicle indeed most likely to be redundant, but side effects to disjoint classes VehicleComponent vs Vehicle. Vehicle has two roles, one as root of the structure one as a concrete vehicle.