In the longer term, Parameter and Report may be roles rather than classes within Data. For now, however, they remain in their original location within SWO.
Additionally, in the near-to-medium future, the Core data class may become obsolete, and all children of Core data would be moved to be children of Data directly. This fits with what Robert thinks should be done.
There is a serious question about SWO data classes such as AP-MS data. This data class describes a very specific subset of data, and Helen has concerns about whether classes like this should be present. Similarly, classes such as CSV data set may not be required, as this could equally well be described with an anonymous data class which has a format of CSV. Indeed, many pieces of data could be described in this way, requiring a very clear definition of when it is appropriate for data classes to be created. I had imagined that broad classes of data (which could have many formats) are what belongs in a data hierarchy. Examples of this would include microarray data and image data. The result of better defining what should be a data class should be added to the ontology in a comment label of the data class, and perhaps a blog post about it too (the comment could just reference the blog post).
Although HTML report does seem to be a report rather than a member of data, I have left it where it is in the hierarchy until the EDAM hierarchy (and how Reports are to be modelled) has been decided.
Meta data is modelled within data for SWO, and as a child of Report within EDAM. Therefore, for the same reasons that no reconciliation of HTML report is being performed, until the new modelling of the Report hierarchy has been decided, I see no reason to consider moving the SWO class.