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'.)
In this part of the data model:
There's the following comment:
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'.)