Parts should have a BoM as well

[hoijui]

They currently do not, only the project/module its self does:
https://github.com/OPEN-NEXT/LOSH-OKH-JSON-Schemas/blob/master/okh-losh.schema.json

[hoijui]

This would also bring us much closer to ValueFlows,
as there each (sub-)process has its own BoM.

[moedn]

why should parts have a BoM? and what would be in there?

[hoijui]

Part BoMs would contain the stuff required to make that part.
The reason for this is modularization,
and paralellization/outsourcing when manufacturing.
(that is why VF has it)

[fosterlynn]

Apologies for butting in, it is with good intentions. :) Please disregard if you'd rather not consider this, or if it is impossible given your source data.

Taking it even one step farther back, VF does not distinguish between Parts and Modules, they are all EconomicResources. Noting that parts have to be made same as components; and that parts can be sold same as components; and some items might even be used both as a part and a "product" component. Basically Part is not a single semantic concept, it is more of a relationship between two resources.

From your readme:

We want to organise open source hardware in a graph database.

Great goal! To do that, I think you have to make parts and components into the same thing with identifiers that don't overlap each other. Otherwise you can't tell that one component's Part A is the same as another component's Part B.

[moedn]

• modules can be assembled out of other modules and parts
• parts cannot be assembled; they can only be bought or built

[hoijui]

In the meeting we had this morning, @moedn and me came to the conclusion, that in order to have a meaningful decision - or even just a conversation - regarding this - we first have to clarify issue #11.