Currently, Systems are defined as containing only equip entities. I think this is too limiting for modeling complex system ontologies.

I propose we expand the system entity definition to include containment of any other entity type (equip, device, space, point, system, site).

This would solve many problems/limitations identified with other entity types/references, (like complex relationships between equip, zone, and space). Since we could have a zone system and have any number of equip, point, space, device have systemRef to shared parent systems. (by the way, zone is essentially described in the standard as a type of system already). (multiple other forums posts about these issues, with no resolution to the problems)

I have many laboratory systems which require a broader system definition as well. And it would allow us to actually set a standard way of setting up these more complex system relationships rather than everyone coming up with their own imperfect bespoke solution due to limitations.

Perhaps sites would be the outlier here... but I have several large campuses that I work on where being able to model multiple sites as members of a larger campus system would work very well.

I can't think of any downsides.

I understand this would mean a substantial change. But I don't think it would result in a breaking change to anything existing. It really just expands the flexibility of using the system type, and the systemRef.

More philosophically... in systems theory/thinking, everything can be modeled into a system, we should try to align the standard with that reality.