Model: Location

[annabelleee]

Basic Location Model

Steps to completion (updated):

• [ ] Metadata
• [ ] Diagram (using ARM WG notation)
• [ ] Sample Data
• [ ] Sample Concepts
• [ ] JSON of Arches branch based on diagram in ARM WG github repo
• [ ] Vote in comments to officially approve Model

[azaroth42]

Place Model:

Noting that the SP4 / SP5 part would be a good thing to attempt to create in Arches to see if it works in practice. The pattern relies on SP5 being a Space Primitive, which (one can argue) is an error in the document as the Primitives are typically literals rather than resources.

[Habennin]

So this one is also in the google sheet. I agree that the SP5 node and primitive statement seems suspicious. To be thought about.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EYk1yhhBNWrKbVB0jV_1j8NJ-Egi5zWha7QrVvYvw3s/edit?usp=sharing

It seems to me that the Geometry node is complicated enough to ask for another branch. So I added that in the excel. What do you mean by format and do you have a suggested property for it? (CRM or no?)

[azaroth42]

I've brought up the SP5 / E94 issue on the SIG list: http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/2018-July/003403.html I anticipate that E94 will be removed from SP5, sending us back to the drawing board.

format -- dc:format, range xsd:string, value should be an iana registered media type. (e.g. it's a digital, dereferencable information object)

[azaroth42]

And to report on the Arches side of things ... it doesn't work without editing the ontology files, as E94 isn't a super class of SP5.

[azaroth42]

I propose to use P1_is_identified_by between the Place and the SP5. This would follow the Appellation route (SP5 is a subClass of E47, is a subClass of E44, is a subClass of E41 Appellation).

That gets us out of the Literal vs Resource conundrum, and while the relationship isn't as clear as P168, it's still pretty good -- the geometry can be used to describe the boundary in physical space that provides an objective identity to the place. (This is I believe that Martin means when he says that there needs to be a discussion between Appellation and Space-time Volume [STV])

[Habennin]

This is definitely a possible way to go and basically follows the old CRM strategy of treating the coordinates as a name. We have put CRMgeo people on to the problem though so maybe we can get a final idea/solution on p168 from that direction. In the meantime, I would also support the name route.

[azaroth42]

Yup, let's pencil in P1 for now and if there's a better solution emerging, we can switch to it at that point.

[azaroth42]

From August meeting discussion:

[annabelleee]

Change name to Place and now two versions: one simple branch and one simple model. URL to come.