Should some parts of gist be re-modularized?

[rjyounes]

Were we overzealous in de-modularizing all of gist? Perhaps there are some truly separable modules.

Caution: in many cases, modularization was not viable because, due to dependencies, one of the terms had to be in gistTop. This was true of gistNetwork and also, I believe, gistIoT. We should study the history pre-modularization to avoid recreating the same problem.

[rjyounes]

An ontology versioning ontology (Michael and Boris are working on one) is a good candidate for a separate module.

[rjyounes]

Dave is also working on a software ontology.

[rjyounes]

We should consider whether these modules should have different namespaces, so that there is real modularity rather than just the intention of modularity. One of the reasons given for using a single namespace was for refactoring - moving terms from one module to another - but I see this as just a signal that these were not truly separable modules. If something is clearly separable as a module then it should have its own namespace.

[rjyounes]

From Dave: IoT should be taken out of core. Network and systems should remain in core, as currently.

[marksem]

See #66 re adding to gistIoT

[rjyounes]

Candidates:

• IoT - sensor, actuator, etc. but not network because it has a more general usage)