Repository navigation
Grenade Class Restricted to Only Hand-Thrown Grenades, and only Explosive Weapon Grenades #921
Description
Issue 1: Grenade Deployment Mechanisms
Issue Description: The definition for Grenade (https://www.commoncoreontologies.org/ont00000310) restricts the class extension to only hand-thrown [explosive] grenades. This excludes grenades that are projected from special handheld or mounted grenade launchers instead of being thrown by hand.
Current definition: "An Explosive Weapon that is designed to be relatively small and to be thrown by hand."
Proposed COA 1: If the intent is for cco:ont00000310 to represent only hand-thrown explosive grenades, the rdfs:label should probably be modified to reflect that narrower scope. If pursuing this COA, it may make sense to add an interstitial Explosive Grenade class that is defined to represent all explosive grenades, regardless of whether they are thrown by hand or projected from special handheld or mounted grenade launchers.
Proposed COA 2: If the intent is for cco:ont00000310 to represent all explosive grenades, the definition could be modified to reflect these additional deployment mechanisms. This approach would change the extension of the class to include grenades that are projected from special handheld or mounted grenade launchers.
Issue 2: Not all Grenades are Explosive, and not all Grenades are Weapons
Issue Description: Currently, Grenade (https://www.commoncoreontologies.org/ont00000310) is a subClassOf Explosive Weapon (https://www.commoncoreontologies.org/ont00000552).
This restricts the class extension to only explosive grenades that are weapons. This excludes grenades that aren't explosive, and grenades that are not necessarily weapons. For example, smoke grenades and illumination grenades bear a pyrotechnic function, which, If I were defining what a pyrotechnic function is, I'd probably define it as "An artifact function that inheres in a material artifact, and that, if realized, is realized in a controlled process of exothermic chemical reaction producing heat, light, smoke, sound, gas, or a combination thereof."
The obscurant functionality of a smoke grenade is commonly used not as a weapon to harm, but rather for things like obscuring troop positions, or to communicate information. Illumination grenades are also commonly used not as weapon to harm, but rather to light an area during night operations to aid navigation.
Sources:
“Physical‑Hazard Criteria (Mandatory), Appendix B to §1910.1200.” Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, https://www.osha.gov/laws‑regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1200AppB. Accessed 6 Aug. 2025.
“Pyrotechnic (US DoD Definition).” MilitaryFactory.com, Military Factory, https://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.php?term_id=4327. Accessed 6 Aug. 2025.
Proposed COA: It may be worth considering whether it might make sense to create a Munition defined class as a subClassOf Material Artifact, equivalent to a Material Artifact that is bearer of some Munition Artifact Function, which, If I were defining what a Munition is, would probably include something about the material artifact being designed to support military or paramilitary operations by causing a physical effect on a target after separating from its operator, and which is consumed or otherwise unrecoverable in the course of realizing that effect. (As a caveat to this suggestion, A minor tweak may need to be made here to clarity that this would include reusable munitions. Maybe saying "consumed, expends an operational resource, or is otherwise unrecoverable..."). This modeling approach would enable for the creation of different types of grenades outside of the weapon/explosive weapon hierarchy.
Department of the Army. AR 5-13 Total Army Munitions Requirements Process. Headquarters, Department of the Army, 8 July 2019, https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN30355-AR_5-13-000-WEB-1.pdf.
Munition Definition Glossary. Open Source Munitions Portal website. n.p. n.d. Web. Accessed 1 Jul. 2025. https://osmp.ngo/resources/glossary/
United States Department of Defense. DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. Joint Publication 1-02, 8 November 2010 (as amended through 15 February 2016), https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp1_02.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2025.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
Type
Projects
- StatusShow more project fieldsBacklog
Activity
aellenhicks-jhuapl commentedon Jul 27, 2026
I question whether grenade, explosive mine, and other weapon classes are mid-level. This seems very domain specific, and so maybe not a good candidate for CCO Mid-Level ontologies.
grabusm1 commentedon Jul 27, 2026
For sure! An alternative solution would be to remove some of these classes from CCO.
There are definitely some other obvious domain-specific CCO weapon terms that are good candidates for removal. One that comes to mind is Howitzer, especially given that it's modeled as a weapon even though self-propelled howitzers are ground vehicles (realistically, Weapon should be a defined class that is equivalent to a Material Artifact that is bearer of some Weapon Role or Weapon Function). I'll create a separate issue for that one.