Speak about the test pieces that are being used

[webhart]

The current version of tto speaks about the process and the SDCs that are identified in a tensile test. It would be helpful if the ontology would provide support in speaking about the test pieces that are suitable "specified inputs" to a "tensile testing process".
Usually bfo:objects that adhere to DIN EN 6892 requirements for test pieces have pretty well defined properties wrt size and proportions. It would be helpful to have some classes for frequently used test piece geometries.

[MarkusSchilling]

I agree in principle with the idea to better support “specified input” test pieces and common test piece geometries in TTO.
However, I think this requires further discussion: fundamentally, it touches the question of how to translate requirements from standards into “plan specifications” / “methods” (or similar), which is not yet widely explored in our modeling approaches.
In the longer run, this also points toward validation of used geometries, e.g., via SHACL shapes (“Was the used test piece geometry permitted by the standard?”).
In any case, PMDco already provides classes such as “shape” (PMD_0050155), “shape 3d” (PMD_0050157), and “geometry shape” (PMD_0050156) that can be used to state/annotate the geometry that was used.