Deprecate isAspectOf, add hasAspect

[rjyounes]

Normally the assertion and queries would go the other way: you don't want to know all the things that have a length aspect, you want to know what aspects a thing has. The former involves making assertions on a taxonomic term, which is odd.

Also make range of hasAspect gist:Aspect.

[uscholdm]

I agree with the main point.

Also make range of hasAspect gist:Aspect.

Makes sense at first glance, but this sort of thing tends to backfire as often as not. It might be we wans to say something hasAspect where the aspect is an aspect in everyday terms, but is strictly speaking not exactly what we mean by gist:Aspect. That can be done with SHACL.

[rjyounes]

Your point is a good one. I retract the range proposal.

[uscholdm]

@rjyounes
PROPOSAL:

• Deprecate isAspectOf, add hasAspect
• Don't have a domain or a range for hasAspect

This is timely, as the refactored units proposal (#697) will likely want to use hasAspect.

[rjyounes]

@uscholdm I agreem with this proposal. Should this issue be rolled into the units and measures model, or can we address it independently?

[uscholdm]

Should this issue be rolled into the units and measures model, or can we address it independently?

Probably does not matter much - if somone want to do it now, not a bad idea. One less thing to document when UoM changes.

[rjyounes]

@philblackwood Is this in accord with the new units and measures model?

[philblackwood]

will be included in new Units of Measure.