Remove geopolitical entities

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Comments from users note confusion on the inclusion of classes like 
administrative region (ENVO_00000004) and political entity (ENVO_00000123).

These seem more suited to GAZ.
Suggest obsoletions with consider relations to anthropogenic biomes.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by p.buttig...@gmail.com on 7 Oct 2013 at 4:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It will make things easier if classes remain in ENVO and instances in GAZ. This 
is somewhat tied to the way GAZ is developed in OE. But either way, if 
"administrative region" is a valid class it doesn't really matter what the ID 
space is, so long as it's superclasses etc make sense. 


I don't see anything inherently wrong here (other than lack of definitions or 
the longstannding feature definition wrongness):

 / ENVO:00002297 ! environmental feature [DEF: "A feature that is."]
  is_a ENVO:00000000 ! geographic feature
   is_a ENVO:00000002 ! anthropogenic geographic feature [DEF: "An anthropogenic geographic feature is a geographic featurenresulting from the influence of human beings on nature."]
    is_a ENVO:00000004 ! administrative region ***

Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com on 7 Oct 2013 at 4:07

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

True, the issue is more with feature (and its relation to environments) than 
its subclasses. Shall I add a comment including this information to these 
classes?

Original comment by p.buttig...@gmail.com on 7 Oct 2013 at 4:16

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[pbuttigieg]

@cmungall
User confusion due to the very presence of the class can probably be addressed by creating appropriate slims and/or subsets. The environmental feature definition is in better shape now. Given this new definition and the determined_by relation to system, we can ask whether a class like "administrative region environment" makes sense. It's a bit odd to me.