gist:Landmark as a subclass of gist:Place

[dylan-sa]

Currently gist:Landmark is a subclass of gist:Place. The sibling classes under gist:Place are geospatial regions like gist:GeoPoint, gist:GeoRegion, and gist:GeoVolume. It seems right that an instance of gist:Landmark must occupy some gist:GeoRegion or gist:GeoVolume, but it doesn't seem like a landmark or a building is a place in the same way a geospatial region is a place.

My proposal would be to remove this subclass axiom from the definition of gist:Landmark and leave its equivalent class axiom.

Current definition:

gist:Landmark
	a owl:Class ;
	rdfs:subClassOf gist:Place ;
	owl:equivalentClass [
		a owl:Class ;
		owl:intersectionOf (
			gist:PhysicalIdentifiableItem
			[
				a owl:Restriction ;
				owl:onProperty gist:occupiesGeographicallyPermanently ;
				owl:someValuesFrom [
					a owl:Class ;
					owl:unionOf (
						gist:GeoRegion
						gist:GeoVolume
					) ;
				] ;
			]
		) ;
	] ;
	skos:definition "Something permanently attached to the Earth."^^xsd:string ;
	skos:prefLabel "Landmark"^^xsd:string ;
	.

Proposed definition:

gist:Landmark
	a owl:Class ;
	owl:equivalentClass [
		a owl:Class ;
		owl:intersectionOf (
			gist:PhysicalIdentifiableItem
			[
				a owl:Restriction ;
				owl:onProperty gist:occupiesGeographicallyPermanently ;
				owl:someValuesFrom [
					a owl:Class ;
					owl:unionOf (
						gist:GeoRegion
						gist:GeoVolume
					) ;
				] ;
			]
		) ;
	] ;
	skos:definition "Something permanently attached to the Earth."^^xsd:string ;
	skos:prefLabel "Landmark"^^xsd:string ;
	.

[uscholdm]

it doesn't seem like a landmark or a building is a place in the same way a geospatial region is a place.

I agree. I also agree that the axiom about a landmark occupying geographically a region or volume is ontologically correct. Im open to whether we do or do not add a occupiesGeographicallyPermanently property just for this class definition.

Also, my understanding of gist:Place is that it is meant to encompass a variety of ways of being a place, so I am not inclined to remove the subclass relationship.

[dylan-sa]

Also, my understanding of gist:Place is that it is meant to encompass a variety of ways of being a place, so I am not inclined to remove the subclass relationship.

Fair point!

[rjyounes]

Closing.