Alternative approaches to dimensions

In this part of the data model:

        cidoc:P43_has_dimension [
            a cidoc:E54_Dimension ;
            # could additionally have cidoc:P2_has_type mosa:Height (for example)
            schema:unitText "cm" ;
            schema:value 165 ],
        [ 
            a cidoc:E54_Dimension ;
            # could additionally have cidoc:P2_has_type mosa:Width (for example)
            schema:unitText "cm" ;
            schema:value 9 ],
        [ 
            a cidoc:E54_Dimension ;
            # could additionally have cidoc:P2_has_type mosa:Width (for example)
            schema:unitText "cm" ;
            schema:value 6 ] ;

There's the following comment:

by using CIDOC-CRM's P43_has_dimension, we are committing to objects being "cidoc:E70_Thing"s (because that's the deomain of the predicate) dimension could also be made part of the mosa:physical_object property (depending on how "debatable" this info is considered)

Could we instead define (e.g.) height through schema's height property (https://schema.org/height)? Would that avoid us committing to It being a 'Thing' in CIDOC's sense? (height is also a property of schema's 'Thing' type, but in schema Thing is more general, with subtypes such as 'Person'.)

radical-data / mosa-ontology

Alternative approaches to dimensions #1