Users are confused as to whether they need comprises or hasConstituent or hasMember or hasPart.

In order to address this, we need to augment some of the properties with disjointness, such as between comprises and hasPart. Then we need to make clear that membership involves discrete elements and constituency may or may not involve discrete elements. hasConstituent can be used with cardinality constraints whereas hasPart cannot be due to OWL reasoning constraints.

Clarify the use of several properties in the Collections ontology

Clarify the definition of properties related to inclusion, including when to use comprises vs. hasPart (which is transitive), and hasConstituent vs. hasMember (whose elements are discrete and countable), making hasConstituent and hasMember disjoint in the Collections ontology

This datatype is quite useful but most free and some commercial OWL tools don't support (1) custom datatypes in OWL, and (2) rdf:langString. We need to provide a stronger warning to users who might want to extend Text with the inherent risk in doing so depending on their application and tool infrastructure.

Add a note to Text that warns people not to use it under certain circumstances

The current scope note doesn't go far enough to warn potential users of some of the issues with this datatype. A stronger usage note should be added in addition to the current scope note.

The AboutCommons.rdf file is a convenience file that can be used to load all of the ontologies into ontology editors such as Protege, triple stores, and other applications. The namespace prefix for this ontology does not conform to the others in terms of its structure, however. It is currently "abt-cmns" and should be "cmns-abt".

Revise the namespace prefix for AboutCommons to be "cmns-abt"

The namespace prefix in the beta 1 specification for this ontology is "abt-cmns", which is different in structure from all the others, which are of the form "cmns-"<ontology prefix>.

Fixing this requires a 1 line change to the specification and a revision to the AboutCommons ontology, attached.

This is a gap, as classification scheme and identification scheme are both already subclasses of arrangement.

Make CodeSet a kind of Arrangement

CodeSets are essentially controlled vocabularies that conform to some scheme and that are collections. Every code set is both an arrangement and a collection in other words. Thus, code set should be a subclass of arrangement.

The definitions of designation and name need some additional work and don't align with the ISO definitions as well as they should. The definition of designation needs clarification and the definition of name should state that it is not linguistically neutral per its usage in the standard. Also, even if we clarify name, we probably don't want it to be disjoint with identifier as it is now (needs further discussion).

Clarification of the distinctions between kinds of designators

1. Clarified the definition of designation, denotes, and name, and better aligned them with ISO 704 / ISO 1087 in the Designations ontology
2. Augmented the definition of a contextual name to require a context in the Contextual Designations ontology
3. Further clarified the distinction between an identifier, contextual identifer and code / code set by adding notes, making identfies a functional property, and adding the notion of a contextual identification scheme in the Identifiers, Contextual Identifiers, and Codes and Code Sets ontologies