Pier Luigi Buttigieg

Many thabks @vzett Would you have example values for these fields? For those with categories (e.g. Area Type) are there controlled lists of terms we should recommend ?

Further refinements / exchange will take place in #127

@fils @jmckenna we should nest this pattern under a generic "site" pattern

We can move the subclasses to other appropriate hierarchies, but solid layer should not be obsoleted. It can be filled by inference using the corresponding qualities.

Manufacturing should be distinguished from construction, they have different hierarchies

The core PROV terms (what are referred to as [Starting Point](https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#description-starting-point-terms) terms) are mostly covered.  I'm not convinced that adding the [Expanded terms](https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#description-expanded-terms) or the [Qualified terms](https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#description-qualified-terms) is really...

The Expanded terms are actually reasonably mappable. But things like Collections etc are not appropriate in the PROV domain - this is mission creep on PROV's part. The same is...

xref https://github.com/ESIPFed/science-on-schema.org/issues/211 @ashepherd I think ProvONE has the same issues of mission creep as the expanded and qualifying PROV terms. We can still map, but I think the PROV realm...

@matentzn this may be interesting to you, and a quick check of this SSSOM would be appreciated.

Thanks @matentzn What would the registry entail? We'll likely have more SSSOM files on the way, thus it sounds sensible