rduerr

Hmmm... thanks for the hint - quite useful. I think we will need to discuss at the next ESIP semantic harmonization call as well as for the SWEET work.

OK weighing in here; I wasn't involved in all of these definitions; but did notice based on this ticket that yes, there are some screwy things in the current hierarchy,...

> We may want to also think about simple compositional patterns such as "X glacier = glacier and composed-primarily of X" which will help make it more explicit (at the...

@kaiiam maybe all of those questions can be discussed at the next semantic harmonization telecon?

Ditto! Sent from my iPad > On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:20 AM, Kai Blumberg ***@***.***> wrote: > >  > Since 2020 I've learned a few things one obvious...

OK, so I submitted a comment on their system....

Actually the issue is that SWEET doesn’t use part_of or composed_of relationships so they used region instead. To make this consistent with ENVO we should eliminate this term in favor...

On the subject of multiple definitions, I am totally opposed to this! Entities with different definitions need different URI's and axioms! We need ontological mechanisms to say that thermokarst means...

> > I think we want to be able to support multiple definitions, > > I agree with that. The point I made (when this came up during ESIP) was...

Ah yes, but that is a different use case then mine. In your use case, the concepts are agreed to by the community, even if their values change over time....