Are vivo:Location and vcard:Location redundant?

[hauschke]

What is the motivation for your change request? We have two classes for :location: https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#Location:

:Location a owl:Class ;
    rdfs:label "Location"@en ;
    rdfs:comment "An object representing a named geographical place"@en ;
    rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns> ;
    rdfs:subClassOf :Kind ;
    owl:disjointWith :Organization .

http://vivoweb.org/ontology/core#Location:

@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix obo: <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .

<http://vivoweb.org/ontology/core#Location>
  a owl:Class ;
  rdfs:label "Location"@en ;
  rdfs:subClassOf <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000006> ;
  obo:IAO_0000112 "It's anticipated that the subclasses will be used when classifying items. And, all locations can be viewable via this class."^^xsd:string, "Use subclasses of core:Location when classsifying items."^^xsd:string ;
  obo:IAO_0000115 "Top level of all location classes."^^xsd:string .

It seems to be clear that vivo:Location is talking about geographical places. If this is the case, we might want to deprecate and finally remove one of those classes.

Describe the solution you'd like Discussion is needed

1. if the classes are redundant,
2. and if yes, which one to keep.

[tawahle]

There are no individuals assigned to vcard:Location in a standard VIVO, whereas there are plenty of individuals assigned to the subclasses of core:Location. Therefore, I would suggest to keep core:Location.