Geospatial Location definition in tension with axiom (and other concerns)

[gregfowlerphd]

The definition for Geospatial Location－

A Geospatial Region that is at which an Entity or Event is located.

－is in tension with the subclass axiom:

'location of' some entity

Here's why. The range restriction on location of－

'independent continuant' and (not ('spatial region'))

－indicates that only independent continuants fall within its range. However, the definition indicates that a Geospatial Region might be a Geospatial Region because it's the location of an event, and events aren’t continuants at all, let alone independent continuants.

A couple other (more minor) problems. First, ‘Event’ is capitalized in the definition despite no Event class being present in CCO, an instance of what @BrendaBraitling called the capitalization by convention problem over in #573. Second, the definition－in particular, the ‘that is at’ part－appears to be ungrammatical.

I believe these problems warrant revising the definition－

A Geospatial Region in which some Independent Continuant is located or at which some Process occurs.*

*Note that I’ve replaced ‘Event’ with ‘Process’, since the former is given as an alternative label for the class named by the latter.

－and replacing the subclass axiom with an equivalence axiom:

'Geospatial Region' and (('location of' some 'independent continuant') or ('is site of' some process))

[mark-jensen]

A Geospatial Region in which some Independent Continuant is located or at which some Process occurs.

This is a good clarifying improvement. Note that BFO uses 'event' as an alternative label for 'process', so I am not so concerned about the need for that change.

However, we may want to save the specific changes until we have an answer to resolving #591 as many terms in CCO annotations refer to relations in some truncated, modified form that fits with a natural language reading. For example, you could use the actual labels of the relations by modyfying thusly:

A Geospatial Region that is the location of some Independent Continuant or is site of some Process.

[gregfowlerphd]

@mark-jensen: Thanks, Mark. :) Though, imo, replacing the axiom does more than clarify; it corrects an error.

It's perhaps worth noting that the revised definition does use labels of the relations located in and occurs at, which are the inverses of the relations used in the equivalence axiom. It's just that the words in these labels are rearranged in a way allowed by natural language.

I take your point though.