site/location/spatial region

[ramonawalls]

The discussions of this topic have been somewhat muddled by a mix of domain specific needs and more general needs for COB. For example, see #87 and #91, plus the closed issue #11. This state of affairs makes it difficult to discuss any of the sub-issues in detail. I suggest the following:

1. rename Proposed grouping above material and immaterial entity #87 to be about immaterial and material entities/sites in anatomy, and focus the discussion on the needs of AOs. It already has the 'anatomy' tag.

2. Focus definition for geographic location #91 on the need to describe geographic places and map to GAZ

3. Use this issue for a general discussion about sites/spacial regions/locations. There is also a lengthy discussion of this at New classes: sub-classes of site BiodiversityOntologies/bco#86

My two cents to follow soon.

[pbuttigieg]

Seconded @ramonawalls

This conversation always spirals off in several directions. From first principles: there are cases where people need to talk about the space itself, and cases where there's no substantial difference between that space and the stuff it contains/overlaps.

COB can choose to handle one or both of these. If the former, there will naturally be geospatial ontologies emerging to handle what COB doesn't, and mapping will be weird / conceptually bloated.

I suggest we have both in COB, being clear what each one is intended for and when their use is recommended or advised against.