Wrangle areas and astronomical body parts

[pbuttigieg]

@cmungall and I deep dived into this and have the following plan:

• Assume that most cases of data/information about areas of X (where X is an astronomical body part) are actually cases of data/information about X
  • mismatches due to geospatial data processing errors and the like should not cause knowledge-level turbulence
• Thus, areas which are cognate with an X can be obsoleted, replaced by X itself
• Areas which are not cognate with X (e.g. areas defined by legislation, like protected area, which may lag behind the shifting boundaries of some X) will continue to exist. However,
  • Comments must be placed on them clarifying the nature of the difference

This has special consequence for #658 and its related cases as WWF ecoregions.

[dr-shorthair]

Is it the case that 'areas of X' are sometimes 'samples of X'. In those cases, the areas might merit identification in their own right, but with a formal relationship with X to capture the intention that they are samples.

Related to https://github.com/ESIPFed/sweet/issues/138

[pbuttigieg]

Is it the case that 'areas of X' are sometimes 'samples of X'. In those cases, the areas might merit identification in their own right, but with a formal relationship with X to capture the intention that they are samples.

Yes, if they are a) material and b) the specified output of a sampling process.

These would be synonymous with "portions of X"

[dr-shorthair]

Hmm. They are rather special "portions" which are designed to be "representative" for the purpose of specific observations. Not every portion is a valid sample.