Either adopt or obsolete the RO system grouping

[cmungall]

Background: we created a class "system" in RO in 2013. The understanding then was that BFO would adopt. This has not happened.

The definition is "A material entity consisting of multiple components that are causally integrated."

@ddooley proposed that COB adopt this:

OBOFoundry/COB#206

If COB does adopt this then we still need to review classification in ENVO. If COB does not then ENVO could adopt, or simply remove

I am favor of removal

• the term does no useful grouping work
• the term is not used in any logical inferences
• it is not a term a user would query on
• I am not aware of any use cases for keeping it

Currently the classification is:

system

• 'carbonate system of ocean water'
• 'constructed transport system'
• 'conveyor system'
• 'environmental system'
• 'observing system'
• 'processing line'

This is a fairly heterogeneous grouping of entities.

If we keep this, we need to improve the definition to make it clearer when to populate classes under here. It's not clear why an organism, or organ, or manufactured object like a car are not classified here

[pbuttigieg]

We must keep system. Without it, clases like ecosystems etc will not be rendered well. These have system-level properties including emergence, resilience, and robustness that inhere in systems rather than the simple sum of parts.

We'll maintain it in ENVO itself, the COB process is too fraught.

The examples of system above are indeed not all of the same kind, and we should sharpen definitions.