Ontology: some subclasses of has participant don't fit the definition

[sfluegel05]

Description of the issue

has participant is currently defined as _a relation between a process and a continuant_, but some subproperties are defined as relations between a publication / model and something else. Since publications and models are not processes, this is inconsistent.
The subclasses are:

• has author
• has client
• has contact
• has funding source
• has institution

this is related to #486 and #473

Ideas of solution

• has funding source could be defined as a relation that holds between a study (instead of publication/model) and its source of funding.
• The other subproperties could become indepent from has participant

Workflow checklist

• [x] I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution
• [x] I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository
• [x] The goal of this ontology is clear to me

I am aware that

• [x] every entry in the ontology should have a definition
• [x] classes should arise from concepts rather than from words

[akleinau]

I guess study, model and publication can all have a funding source?

moving the classes away from has participant makes sense. Is there any new property we could group them together under? They all describe some relation between institutions, humans and models/publications.

[sfluegel05]

At the moment we don't have a fitting superproperty, but we could create one. I would suggest has contributor which would be very close to has participant but a little more focused on the work itself (i.e. the model/publication) instead of the process.

I agree that studies, models and publication all can have funding sources, so maybe we should leave it as an independent property which is neither a subclass of has contributor nor of has participant? This would give us the opportunity to extend the domain of has funding source further if necessary (nearly everything can have a funding source in my view).

[stap-m]

I guess study, model and publication can all have a funding source?

Models aren't usually related to a funding source. Publications maybe... but study report gets the relation already via study and I don't see a use case to annotate other kinds of publication to funding sources right now.

Edit: or do we have funding source in the model factsheets? 👀

[han-f]

I agree with @stap-m.
On models: while I agree they are typically not related to a funding source in our closer surroundings, how about models that are built specifically for a customer for his/her use? This may be the case in "Auftragsforschung" and in this case such a model could have a funding source, albeit it would be a special case. Couldn't the ontology read: study has funding source none or not specified?

[akleinau]

I agree with @stap-m.
On models: while I agree they are typically not related to a funding source in our closer surroundings, how about models that are built specifically for a customer for his/her use? This may be the case in "Auftragsforschung" and in this case such a model could have a funding source, albeit it would be a special case. Couldn't the ontology read: study has funding source none or not specified?

an ontology describes what's there rather then whats's not there, so it would just not say anything about the funding source if there is none.

[akleinau]

has funding source actually sounds very generic. So we could just leave the domain open?
"a relation that holds between an entity and its source of funding."

[sfluegel05]

has funding source actually sounds very generic. So we could just leave the domain open?
"a relation that holds between an entity and its source of funding."

That would be a good solution.

Is this ready for implementation then?