On a project wherein we are modeling fire suppression systems. Typical fire extinguishers have as parts Pressure Vessels designed to store a propellant gas (cco:Portion of Gaseous Propellant) by means of which the extinguishing agent is expelled/discharged. (In the case of the ubiquitous traditional extinguishers, a cylindrical tank).
As such, we are defining a subclass of Fire Extinguisher with reference to a constituent Pressure Vessel (Not the generic class that is its parent, as I learned that there are also Fire Extinguishers that do not function via a pressure vessel, e.g. 'Fire Ball Extinguishers'.)
I think it would be preferable if Pressure Vessel were curated in the cco:Artifact module. If one looks at the wiki page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel] there are many different types of Pressure Vessels, some of which span different domains.
An initial definition, derived from the wiki page:
'A Container that is designed to store some portion of gas or liquid at a Pressure substantially different from the ambient Pressure applied to the Container by the air, gas, or liquid of its immediate surrounding environment.'
*The phrase 'applied by the air...' is used to parallel the phrasing of the definition of cco :Pressure
**Is the clause concerning the surrounding medium/environment necessary? Can it be left implicated? > i.e. simplify definition to >
"A Container that is designed to store some portion of gas or liquid at a Pressure substantially different from the ambient Pressure applied to the Container."
Related, 'ambient Pressure' occurs in the definition of cco:Sound Pressure, but is not itself defined as a class
Edit 8/25/2026: Although, given the push in the cco developer group to eventually move various content from common core into open-source domain ontologies stored on this repo (as was done with Barcode classes, for instance), it may be the case that it is better curated in such an ontology. I just don't know what the domain would be.
On a project wherein we are modeling fire suppression systems. Typical fire extinguishers have as parts Pressure Vessels designed to store a propellant gas (cco:Portion of Gaseous Propellant) by means of which the extinguishing agent is expelled/discharged. (In the case of the ubiquitous traditional extinguishers, a cylindrical tank).
As such, we are defining a subclass of Fire Extinguisher with reference to a constituent Pressure Vessel (Not the generic class that is its parent, as I learned that there are also Fire Extinguishers that do not function via a pressure vessel, e.g. 'Fire Ball Extinguishers'.)
I think it would be preferable if Pressure Vessel were curated in the cco:Artifact module. If one looks at the wiki page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel] there are many different types of Pressure Vessels, some of which span different domains.
An initial definition, derived from the wiki page:
'A Container that is designed to store some portion of gas or liquid at a Pressure substantially different from the ambient Pressure applied to the Container by the air, gas, or liquid of its immediate surrounding environment.'
*The phrase 'applied by the air...' is used to parallel the phrasing of the definition of cco :Pressure
**Is the clause concerning the surrounding medium/environment necessary? Can it be left implicated? > i.e. simplify definition to >
"A Container that is designed to store some portion of gas or liquid at a Pressure substantially different from the ambient Pressure applied to the Container."
Related, 'ambient Pressure' occurs in the definition of cco:Sound Pressure, but is not itself defined as a class
Edit 8/25/2026: Although, given the push in the cco developer group to eventually move various content from common core into open-source domain ontologies stored on this repo (as was done with Barcode classes, for instance), it may be the case that it is better curated in such an ontology. I just don't know what the domain would be.