> I find it pretty well stuffed with appropriate information. You're looking at an ontology, not a wikipedia article, it's supposed to be dry (subject, relation, object).
We're talking about a research project with a large amount of funding to go from the former to the latter. But pretty much none of the stuff on Earth's Wikipedia page is represented here.
> applies to part: equator
An equator (the general concept to which the ontology links to) has no given orientation. Earth's Equator is a human construct distinct from an oblate spheroid's equator, as are the specific locations of the poles. Nowhere is it specified in the ontology that this is measured at a specific Equator, not just any equator.
This is all human context and understanding that we've built on top, and it's part of what I mean when I say that the data is kinda pointless. All of these facts depend on culture to understand.
I believe that in most modern human cultures the sentence "the diameter of the Earth" has a very imprecise, very informal, but very recognisable meaning. In fact, I really doubt that most people on the Earth would think of what precisely is the shape of the Earth when talking about its diameter.
We're talking about a research project with a large amount of funding to go from the former to the latter. But pretty much none of the stuff on Earth's Wikipedia page is represented here.
> applies to part: equator
An equator (the general concept to which the ontology links to) has no given orientation. Earth's Equator is a human construct distinct from an oblate spheroid's equator, as are the specific locations of the poles. Nowhere is it specified in the ontology that this is measured at a specific Equator, not just any equator.
This is all human context and understanding that we've built on top, and it's part of what I mean when I say that the data is kinda pointless. All of these facts depend on culture to understand.