# openHAB 5.0 Milestone discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** News & Important Changes\ **Created:** [February 23, 2025, 7:59pm UTC](https://community.openhab.org/t/openhab-5-0-milestone-discussion/162686 "2025-02-23T19:59:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 167
**Author:** ![Mherwege](https://community.openhab.org/user_avatar/community.openhab.org/mherwege/32/19924_2.png) [@Mherwege](https://community.openhab.org/u/Mherwege)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2025, 7:03am UTC](https://community.openhab.org/t/openhab-5-0-milestone-discussion/162686/167 "2025-06-23T07:03:36Z")
> [@AndrewFG](#): > > So I would strongly argue agsinst reintroducing such an over complicated solution to a non existent problem. I am justing bringing up what used to be possible and accepted. `Location`, `Equipment`, `Point` and `Property` where valid tags by themselves (without being listed explicitely in the semantic tags list) and treated as such in the UI. If it is meaningful or not, I am with you it may not be. But I want to avoid breaking things as much as possible. It is not about reintroducing something, it is about avoiding breaking changes. And I can imagine someone wanting to classify something as a `Point` without being explicit about the meaning for some obscure reason. According to the original forum posts on the semantic model, if a `Property` class tag exists without a `Point` class tag, the `Point` class tag would implicitely be considered to be _Status_ or _Control_ ([HABot Walkthrough (2/n): Semantic Tagging & Item Resolving](https://community.openhab.org/t/habot-walkthrough-2-n-semantic-tagging-item-resolving/55651)). For `Equipment`, it is in the documentation this is allowed as a tag ([Semantic Model | openHAB](https://next.openhab.org/docs/tutorial/model.html#from-the-model-page)): > Select the Thing you want to create the Equipment from, and alter the details of the Equipment item that will be created. If you don’t find an appropriate Semantic Class, choose **Equipment**. --- _[View the full topic](https://community.openhab.org/t/openhab-5-0-milestone-discussion/162686)._