The aspect of real estate objects as legal objects in a narrower sense suggests that sites are actually not only a feature of the surface of earth, but a solid portion of ground with legally defined depth etc. Therefore it may be rather an object than a feature.
In scope:
Issue is basically withdrawn. Change the scope note of Physical Feature to include so-called fiat objects(objects with non-natural boundaries like seas etc.).
Here my proposal to modify the scope note of E26 Physical Feature, following the action item
of the CIDOC CRM SIG meeting in Paris:
Proposed scope note:
Features are logically or physically attached in an integral way to a particular physical object, and they share many of the attributes of physical objects. They have a non-zero one-, two- or three-dimensional geometric extent, but there are no natural borders that separate them completely in an objective way from the carrier object, as e.g. a door would be attached by hinges to a house.
They can be features in a narrower sense, like scratches, holes, reliefs, surface colours, reflection zones in an opal crystal, a density change in a piece of wood. In the wider sense, they are portions of particular objects with partially imaginary borders, like the core of earth, a real estate on the surface of earth, a landscape, the head of a contiguous marble statue. They can be measured and dated, and we can sometimes say who was responsible for them. They cannot be separated from the carrier object, but a smaller segment of the carrier object may be identified (or sometimes removed) carrying the complete feature. Cf. Man-made features for the results of human intervention.
This definition implies the so-called "fiat objects" [B.Smith & A.Varzi], i.e. artificially defined objects, except for aggregates or
collections of objects. Physical Objects, in contrast, imply the so-called "bona fide objects", i.e. naturally defined objects, but also aggregates and collections of those.
Examples: The temple in Abu Simbel before its removal, my nose, Albrecht Duerer's signature on his painting of
Charles the Great, the destroyed part of the nose of the Great Sphinx in Gizeh, the door hole, but not the door being attachedby hinges.
(My examples may not all be correctly stated)
MD, January 11, 2002.
Features are logically or physically attached in an integral way to a particular physical object, and they share many of the attributes of physical objects. They have a non-zero one-, two- or three-dimensional geometric extent, but there are no natural borders that separate them completely in an objective way from the carrier object. E.g. a door hole is a feature, but the door, being attached by hinges, is not.
They can be features in a narrower sense, like scratches, holes, reliefs, surface colours, reflection zones in an opal crystal, a density change in a piece of wood. In the wider sense, they are portions of particular objects with partially imaginary borders, like the core of earth, a real estate on the surface of earth, a landscape, the head of a contiguous marble statue. They can be measured and dated, and we can sometimes say who was responsible for them. They cannot be separated from the carrier object, but a smaller segment of the carrier object may be identified (or sometimes removed) carrying the complete feature. Cf. Man-made features for the results of human intervention.
This definition implies the so-called "fiat objects" [B.Smith & A.Varzi], i.e. artificially defined objects, except for aggregates or
collections of objects. Physical Objects, in contrast, imply the so-called "bona fide objects", i.e. naturally defined objects, but also aggregates and collections of those.
Examples: The temple in Abu Simbel before its removal, my nose, Albrecht Duerer's signature on his painting of
Charles the Great, the destroyed part of the nose of the Great Sphinx in Gizeh.
Monterey 21/2/2002.