Label proposal, located_at, occupies, spans -> occupies_spatial_region, occupies_spatiotempoal_region, occupies_temporal_region
Closed this issue · 3 comments
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on July 14, 2012 13:41:32
located_at -> occupies_spatial_region
occupies -> occupies_spatiotemporal_region
spans -> occupies_temporal_region
This would draw to attention the parallels between the relations and remove confusion between located_at, located_in
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=109
From steschu@gmail.com on July 18, 2012 07:25:57
I strongly second this proposal. Users will get used to longer labels anyway, and they will end up appreciating the unambiguousness of this.
Owner: steschu@gmail.com
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on July 18, 2012 19:05:49
My understanding is that Barry concurs and that i am to implement this in the reference and the OWL file
Status: Started
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on July 19, 2012 11:36:09
Status: Fixed-in-reference