What is the proper way to describe a device's relationship to an equip? Often times a device will have points for multiple equip, or a single equip could have points that are contained on multiple devices. Since the device contains the logic/application that controls the equip, I feel there is a relationship that extends beyond the points and up to the device - equip level.

Do you mean device as in controller? We started stubbing that in Haystack 4 as new taxonomy, but it has not been discussed too much. Most likely if the device was "contained" by the equip such as a packaged unit, then you would associate the device to the equip via equipRef. To keep things simple we would probably say you have to pick one most logic parent equip. But that wouldn't necessary prevent points on one equip have having deviceRef to different devices. That whole part of the ontology is fairly wide open and undesigned right now

Yes, I am speaking specifically about a controller in this sense. I don't think the containment relationship works because equipment too often doesn't contain it's controller. It's more of a controls <-> controlledBy relationship. It's something I'm trying to wrap my head around thinking about efficient project deployment when you want to build both your network/device model and your equipment model at the same time. Some current solutions just model controllers as equipment but this quickly breaks down if an equip is getting points from multiple controllers, when one controller serves many equip, or in the case you have to replace a controller with a different one and destroy your equip model with it.

Agree - it can be messy. If you are up for championing a new WG, it would be good to try and tackle devices and networking :-)

I'd be really interested in contributing to this working group if it happens. Sounds like it could have some awesome potential.