Do we need to define "Product as a subclass of Component" in the CRC?

In my view, the definition of product depends largely on the chosen modeling approach. For instance, in production science, a product is often defined from the perspective of manufacturing; i.e., namely, whatever is produced and delivered in response to an order.

A good example comes from the AgiProbot Core Ontology project, where components were also classified as products. This makes sense because in some factories, components themselves are the primary deliverables, while in others the focus is on delivering final, fully assembled products.

In the case of our CRC, however, I believe we fall into the latter category: we do not produce or deliver individual components, but rather complete, assembled products. For this reason, it seems more consistent not to define components as products within our model.

Ref: CRC Glossary

Also, look at the definition of product from our glossary, which does not support the assertion ":Product :subClassOf :Component":

"A product consists of subsystems, which in turn can consist of further subsystems or components. Components cannot be further disassembled. Products considered in this CRC contains mechanical as well as electrical and electronic subsystems and components. Thus, mechatronic products are considered.*"