Individuals without definition

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

We have in oeo-model a lot of individuals without definition (sorted by types):

• analytical approach Restructuring individuals: analytical approach #1147
• boolean variable Restructuring individuals: boolean variable #1148
• data format and file format Restructuring individuals: data format and file format #1149
• solver Restructuring individuals: solver #1150

Type	Individual	Updated	Definition
methodical focus	econometric
methodical focus	monte carlo
methodical focus	spreadsheet
modus	active
modus	inactive
modus	passive
software framework	c++	#1869
software framework	fortran	#1869
software framework	gams	#1889
software framework	gnu
software framework	java	#1869
software framework	math prog
software framework	matlab	#1869
software framework	modelica
software framework	ms_excel
software framework	php	#1869
software framework	python	#1869
software framework	r	#1869
software framework	ruby	#1869
software framework	vba	#1869
uncertainty approach	deterministic
uncertainty approach	stochastic

At least some of them are not unambiguous without a definition. Just three examples:

• Does csv only include comma-separated values or does csv any character-separated values?
• What is the difference between passive and inactive?
• Why is spreadsheet a methodical focus and not a data format or a software framework?

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]

@christian-rli : I assigned you to this issue as most of the individuals are related to software and data.

[l-emele]

@christian-rli @Ludee : Do you already have some ideas for this issue?

[christian-rli]

We haven't gotten into this yet @l-emele . As @Ludee is getting into ontology deveopment now however, I think that this might be a good issue to begin with. I put it on our internal agenda.

[l-emele]

@Ludee : I assigned this issue now to you. Do you already have some proposals for definitions of these individuals?