atmospheric, hydrographic, physiographic features about commoncoreontologies

[alanruttenberg]

Also, Atmospheric Feature doesn't satisfy the definition of Geographic Feature given the usual sense or the word "topographic" used in that definition. It can be pushed up to Environmental Feature.

[cameronmore]

It seems like the rationale for keeping them separate is that 'Portion of Lithosphere' can be a fiat bounding box, while Physiographic Feature picks out a definite, not fiat, feature of the environment, like a hill, valley, etc. So, in practice I can tag geographic data with the features and arbitrary polygons with the portions.

[alanruttenberg]

Seems like a bad choice to have those have to be fiat. I think they should be moved up to material entity, the proposed subclassing done with the understanding that some may be fiat and some object. Reinforces my own practice that making distinctions between the subclasses of material entity is counterproductive.

If I have a bottle of air, the boundaries of the air are not fiat and this would have to be called an atmospheric feature rather than portion of atmosphere, which just seems wrong.