I believe the salient, er, feature, of a man made feature is that it is formed by modification of some physically existing thing, and cannot exist entirely separately from that substrate.
Immobility is not the defining characteristic (e.g. the examples of Michael Jackson's nose in physical feature / man made feature). [I am not entirely sure how robust the definitions are; the examples of door and doorway have some concealed metaphysical assumptions. A door may not be a feature of a building, but it is a feature of the wood or stone it was made from. A doorway is a hole, and the first rule of ontologies of holes is "stop digging". The holonyms of door handles are tricky enough.] Casati, Roberto and Varzi, Achille, "Holes", *The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy *(Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/holes/>. Simon On Mar 24, 2015 9:19 AM, "Athina Kritsotaki" <[email protected]> wrote: > New CIDOC CRM issue > > Dear all, > Immobile buildings (graves, rock cut churches, chambers and generally > immobile monuments) are defined as features since they cannot be separated > from earth and the surrounding matter. The question is should we regard > all the immobile buildings as E25 Man-made Feature? If the answer is > positive, at that case it is contrary to the examples of the Coliseum and > the palace of Knossos, which in CRM are referred as instances of E22 > Man-Made Object and E19 Physical Object respectively. > So, think about this > > Regards, > > Athina Kritsotaki > > > ---------------------------- > Athina Kritsotaki > Information System Laboratory > Institute of Computer Science > Foundation of Research & Technology > e-mail:[email protected] > Tel: 2810 391639 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
