Spatial Region / Space

Local identifier: xwkont:concept:space Slug: space Editorial status: reviewed Created: 2026-07-04 Modified: 2026-07-06

Scope Note

Selection rationale (per ADR-0018's admission bar): Spatial Region/Space is the second concept drafted from the 0.2.0 batch, following time.md. It clears ADR-0018's ≥3-source threshold: direct primary-source verification this session found a nameable spatial-region category in 6 of the 8 source ontologies (BFO, DOLCE, SUMO, GFO, TUpper, GUM — the same six that have a Time category, minus UFO and YAMATO, which this session confirmed lack both). TODO.md's seed description ("BFO spatial region + 4 dimensional subtypes, DOLCE physical-region/space-region, GFO Space, TUpper MaterialObject/ShapedObject/VoluminalRegion/ArealRegion/Curve, SUMO Region filed under Object") is confirmed in its structural core but corrected on two points of detail — see Source Definitions and uncertainty-002.

This crosswalk compares each source ontology's own treatment of space-as-a-category — the region, extent, or class denoting spatial extension, location, or dimensionality — not any single source's full philosophy of space (e.g., BFO's four-dimensionalist spacetime framework or GFO's Brentano-based space model are larger literatures than what is scoped here). Sources compared: BFO, DOLCE, SUMO, UFO, GFO, YAMATO, TUpper, GUM (per ADR-0015's 8-source scope).

Cross-cutting finding, established this session: unlike Time — where 5 of 6 sources with a Time category converged on classifying it as independent of the occurrent/continuant split, with BFO the lone holdout (time.md's note-001) — Space shows no comparable majority pattern. BFO classifies its spatial region as a Continuant (specifically immaterial entity → independent continuant → continuant), the structural mirror-opposite of BFO's own temporal region (Occurrent). DOLCE files space-region as an independent abstract region, a sibling of temporal-region under the same region/abstract branch — matching Time's classification pattern exactly. SUMO files Region under Object → Physical, the opposite side of its Physical/Abstract split from TimeMeasure (Abstract) — mirroring BFO's opposition, but via a different top-level distinction. GFO makes Space an explicit sibling of Time under the shared Space_time branch — the same pattern GFO showed for Time. TUpper's spatial predicates are not promoted to top-level flat-class status the way timepoint is — a structural asymmetry Time did not have. GUM gives Space the same dual-parented, SpatialTemporal-descended structure as Time — see note-001 and uncertainty-001 for a correction this session found to time.md's own prior GUM finding. See note-002.

Exclusions: this crosswalk does not address the Abstract-vs-Concrete split (a separate 0.2.0-batch candidate, though SUMO's and GFO's placement of Space on the concrete/physical side is directly relevant background) or Boundary/Site (also a separate 0.2.0 candidate; BFO's site and GFO's Spatial_boundary/Surface are closely related but distinct categories, noted below but not crosswalked here).

Core.ttl placement is deliberately left open at this draft stage, for the same reasons as time.md (uncertainty-001 there) — no xwkont-core:Space class exists yet in data/ontology/core.ttl. The classification divergence documented above (BFO: continuant; DOLCE/GFO/GUM: independent/sibling category; SUMO: physical/concrete) is a live open question for that eventual placement, made harder by the fact that Time and Space themselves don't even converge on the same divergence pattern — see Uncertainty.

Labels, Alternate Labels, and Source Terminology

Role	Label or term	Source	Language	Notes
XwkOnt working label	Spatial Region / Space	XwkOnt	en	Not yet in data/ontology/core.ttl — see Scope Note.
Source term	Spatial region (+ zero-/one-/two-/three-dimensional spatial region)	BFO	en	Subclass of immaterial entity → independent continuant → continuant.
Source term	Space-region (+ physical-region, spatio-temporal-region)	DOLCE	en	Subtype of physical-region → region → abstract, a quality-space notion.
Source term	Region (+ GeographicArea, HoleRegion, Transitway)	SUMO	en	Subclass of Object → Physical → Entity.
Alternate label	(none found — see Uncertainty)	UFO	en	Zero occurrences of "spatial"/"region"/"location"/"place"/"topology" in the 2021 paper's full extracted text, and zero in the OntoUML vocabulary TTL.
Source term	Space (+ Spatial_region, Spatial_boundary, Topoid, Surface)	GFO	en	Sibling of Time under the sui generis Space_time top-level branch.
Alternate label	(not found as a defined class — see Uncertainty)	YAMATO	en	"Space"/"spatial" occur only as ordinary vocabulary in the one fetchable YAMATO document, though given a more load-bearing informal role than Time (see note-003).
Source term	spatial_region (+ Curve, ArealRegion, VoluminalRegion)	TUpper	en	Informal-semantics predicates in TUpper's own "Spatial Modules"/"FOUnt Modules" sections; not promoted to flat top-level class status the way timepoint is.
Source term	Space (+ SpaceInterval, SpacePoint, SpatialObject, and the separate GUM-3-space.owl directional/topological module)	GUM	en	Core Space apparatus in GUM-3.owl parallels Time's structure closely; a large separate spatial-relations module (GeneralizedLocation, directional projections) has no Time-side counterpart.

Source Definitions and Contextual Notes

Source	Term or identifier	Dimension	Claim type	Definition, quotation, or paraphrase	Reference	Locator	Notes
BFO	Spatial region (BFO_0000006)	technical	direct quotation	"(Elucidation) A spatial region is a continuant entity that is a continuant part of the spatial projection of a portion of spacetime at a given time." dc11:identifier "035-BFO". rdfs:subClassOf immaterial entity (BFO_0000141) → independent continuant (BFO_0000004) → continuant (BFO_0000002).	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020	verified: bfo-core.ttl, class BFO_0000006, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	The formal axioms place spatial region squarely as a Continuant — the direct structural opposite of BFO's own temporal region (Occurrent, per time.md). independent continuant's own elucidation lists "a spatial region" as a worked example, reinforcing this.
BFO	Zero-/one-/two-/three-dimensional spatial region (BFO_0000018 / BFO_0000026 / BFO_0000009 / BFO_0000028)	technical	direct quotation	Zero-dim: "one or a collection of more than one spatially disjoint points in space" (id 037-BFO). One-dim: "a whole consisting of a line together with zero or more lines which may have points as parts" (id 038-BFO). Two-dim: "a spatial region that is a whole consisting of a surface together with zero or more surfaces which may have spatial regions of lower dimension as parts" (id 039-BFO). Three-dim: "a whole consisting of a spatial volume together with zero or more spatial volumes which may have spatial regions of lower dimension as parts" (id 040-BFO). All four rdfs:subClassOf BFO_0000006.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020	verified: bfo-core.ttl, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04; each class's dc11:identifier and label individually confirmed against the surrounding ### block header	Mirrors time.md's BFO row structure exactly (four dimensional subtypes each), the same shape found for Time.
BFO	Site (BFO_0000029) / spatiotemporal region (BFO_0000011)	technical	direct quotation	Site: "a three-dimensional immaterial entity whose boundaries either (partially or wholly) coincide with the boundaries of one or more material entities or have locations determined in relation to some material entity" (id 034-BFO), rdfs:subClassOf immaterial entity — a related but distinct three-dimensional category from spatial region (out of scope here, see Boundary/Site exclusion). Spatiotemporal region: "an occurrent that is an occurrent part of spacetime" (id 095-BFO), rdfs:subClassOf occurrent. A spatially projects onto relation connects a spatiotemporal region to a spatial region: "spatially projects onto is a relation between some spatiotemporal region b and spatial region c such that at some time t, c is the spatial extent of b at t."	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020	verified: bfo-core.ttl, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	Confirms BFO keeps Space (continuant) and spatiotemporal/Time (occurrent) on opposite sides of its top split, connected only via a defined cross-branch relation, not a shared ancestor — the opposite pattern from GFO's shared Space_time branch.
DOLCE	Space-region	technical	direct quotation	"An ordinary space: geographical, cosmological, anatomical, topographic, etc." rdfs:subClassOf physical-region.	xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl	verified: DOLCE-Lite.owl, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	Corrects an implicit slash-notation reading of the TODO.md seed ("physical-region/space-region") — these are not two independent alternatives but parent (physical-region) and child (space-region).
DOLCE	Physical-region (+ region, abstract-region)	technical	direct quotation	Physical-region: "A region at which only physical qualities can be directly located. It assumes some metrics for physical properties." rdfs:subClassOf region; owl:disjointWith temporal-region, owl:disjointWith abstract-region. region itself is one of the four partition members of DOLCE's root particular category, alongside endurant, perdurant, and quality.	xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl	verified: DOLCE-Lite.owl, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	Same region/abstract branch already documented for time.md's temporal-region — Space and Time are explicit siblings here, owl:disjointWith each other but structurally identical in kind (both abstract quality-space regions).
DOLCE	Spatio-temporal-region	technical	direct quotation	"Any region resulting from the composition of a space region with a temporal region, i.e. being present in region r at time t." rdfs:subClassOf space-region — filed under the spatial side, not as an equal-parentage sibling of both.	xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl	verified: DOLCE-Lite.owl, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	An asymmetric combination class (space-region's child, not a neutral joint child of both), unlike BFO's spatiotemporal region which sits entirely on the occurrent side.
SUMO	Region (+ GeographicArea, HoleRegion, Transitway)	technical	direct quotation	"A topographic location. Regions encompass surfaces of Objects, imaginary places, and GeographicAreas. Note that a Region is the only kind of Object which can be located at itself. Note too that Region is not a subclass of SelfConnectedObject, because some Regions, e.g. archipelagos, have parts which are not connected with one another." (subclass Region Object) — a literal, direct assertion. Subclass chain: Entity → Physical → Object → Region.	xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001	verified: current Merge.kif, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	Confirms the TODO.md seed's flagged divergence exactly. Region sits alongside SelfConnectedObject as an Object subtype (the documentation explicitly disclaims Region being a subtype of SelfConnectedObject) — Region and Time's TimeMeasure are on opposite sides of SUMO's Physical/Abstract split, mirroring (via a different distinction) BFO's continuant/occurrent opposition.
UFO	(no class — zero occurrences of spatial vocabulary)	technical	non-equivalence	Full-text search of the already-extracted 2021 Applied Ontology paper text (9,048 lines) for "spatial," "region," "location," "place," "topology," and "space" (word-boundary match) returned zero matches for all six terms.	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	verified absence: 2021 Applied Ontology paper, already-extracted text re-searched directly 2026-07-04	The OntoUML vocabulary TTL (xwkont:ref:ontouml-vocabulary) was also checked as a fallback by the research pass: zero occurrences of "space"/"spatial"/"region" there either. Both UFO's Time and Space content are confirmed fully absent from the reified class structure — a stronger, cleaner absence finding than Time's (which had at least a "unfold in time" property reference).
GFO	Space (+ Space_time)	technical	direct quotation	"GFO uses Brentano space." rdfs:subClassOf Space_time; owl:disjointWith Time. Space_time (rdfs:subClassOf Individual, owl:disjointWith Abstract, owl:disjointWith Concrete) is the same sui generis third top-level branch already documented in time.md for GFO's Time.	xwkont:ref:gfo	verified: modules/gfo-base.owl, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	The cleanest, most literal Space/Time sibling-pairing found among all 8 sources — both are direct children of the same named parent class, mutually disjoint, neither reducible to the other.
GFO	Spatial_region / Spatial_boundary / Topoid / Surface	technical	direct quotation	Spatial_region (source's own rdfs:label reads "Spacial region" — sic, a typo in the primary file itself, not a transcription error introduced here): "Space regions are mereological sums of topoids." rdfs:subClassOf Space; owl:disjointWith Spatial_boundary. Spatial_boundary: "Boundaries of regions are surfaces, boundaries of surfaces are lines, and boundaries of lines are points. As in the case of time-boundaries, spatial boundaries have no independent existence, i.e. they depend on the spatial entity of which they are boundaries." Topoid: "Topoids are connected compact regions of space. They have spatial boundaries." rdfs:subClassOf Spatial_region. Surface: rdfs:subClassOf Spatial_boundary.	xwkont:ref:gfo	verified: modules/gfo-base.owl, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	Near-exact structural mirror of GFO's already-documented Time apparatus (Temporal_region/Time_boundary/Chronoid) — Topoid is GFO's spatial analog of Chronoid.
YAMATO	(none found in the fetchable document, but a load-bearing informal role)	technical	non-equivalence	"Space and time are indispensable for things to exist in the world, while these two can exist independently of entities" (heading: "Substrate and entity" — one of YAMATO's named basic distinctions). "We define a physical thing as something which needs time and space to exist, and introduce semi-abstract which needs only time to exist. Needless to say, there is nothing which requires only space to exist." (Physical/semi-abstract/abstract split.) No defined Space/SpatialRegion class anywhere in the extracted text; the one hit for "region" is YAMATO's own description of DOLCE's "Quality space(region)," not a YAMATO class.	xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010	verified absence, scoped: 2010 technical report, full-text re-searched 2026-07-04	Same scoped-absence pattern as Time, but Space is given a materially richer informal role — it is one criterial term in two of YAMATO's own named top-level distinctions, where Time appears only as incidental usage. See note-003.
TUpper	Spatial_region (+ spatial_part, spatial_C, occupies)	technical	direct quotation	"(spatial_region r) is TRUE in an interpretation of TUpper if and only if r is a member of the class of spatial regions in the universe of discourse of the interpretation. The set of spatial regions forms a mereotopology." occupies: "the physical body x is located in the spatial region r. The mereotopology of physical bodies is preserved by this relation."	xwkont:ref:tupper-colore	verified: TUpper-Terms.html, "Spatial Modules" section, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	Expressed as CLiF unary/binary predicates with informal-semantics glosses, not rdfs:subClassOf axioms — no explicit subclass link to TUpper's four flat top-level classes (object/activity/activity_occurrence/timepoint) exists in this document, unlike timepoint's own explicit top-level-union membership documented in time.md.
TUpper	Curve / ArealRegion / VoluminalRegion	technical	direct quotation	Curve: "x is a member of the class of one-dimensional spatial entities in the universe of discourse of the interpretation." ArealRegion: "...two-dimensional spatial entities..." VoluminalRegion: "...three-dimensional spatial entities...".	xwkont:ref:tupper-colore	verified: TUpper-Terms.html, "FOUnt Modules" section, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	Confirms 3 of the 5 class names in TODO.md's seed exactly.
TUpper	MaterialObject / ShapedObject	technical	direct quotation	Neither term has any prose gloss in TUpper-Terms.html — both are absent from that document entirely. Both exist only as bare, undocumented Declarations in the separate OWL rendering owl/tupper.all.owl: <Declaration><Class IRI="MaterialObject"/></Declaration> (with a SubClassOf restriction on the inverse of constitutes), and <Declaration><Class IRI="ShapedObject"/></Declaration> (with a SubClassOf restriction via bounds/ShapeFeature).	xwkont:ref:tupper-colore	verified, corrected: owl/tupper.all.owl, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04 (path now live, correcting ref-tupper-colore.md's prior 404 note)	Corrects TODO.md's seed, which listed these alongside VoluminalRegion/ArealRegion/Curve as though equally documented — they are real IRIs but carry no primary-source prose definition anywhere fetched, unlike the other three. Record as existing-but-undefined, not on equal footing.
GUM	Space (+ SpaceInterval, SpacePoint)	technical	direct quotation	Space: "Space as an undecomposable mass." rdfs:subClassOf both SpatialObject and Substance (dual parentage, exactly mirroring Time's dual parentage under Substance/TemporalObject); owl:disjointWith SpaceInterval, SpacePoint, Time. SpaceInterval: "Space as a decomposible set of points, intervals, or volumes." rdfs:subClassOf OrderedObject, SpatialObject; owl:disjointWith SpacePoint, TimeInterval. SpacePoint: "Space as a point." rdfs:subClassOf NonDecomposableObject, SpatialObject; owl:disjointWith Substance, TimePoint.	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	verified: GUM-31.owl, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04 (Wayback snapshot re-fetched and re-confirmed directly this session after an initial contradictory research-pass report; resolved in this crosswalk's favor by direct re-inspection)	Each Space class is explicitly owl:disjointWith its Time counterpart (Space/Time, SpaceInterval/TimeInterval, SpacePoint/TimePoint) — a systematic, class-by-class disjointness pairing not found in any other source.
GUM	SpatialObject / SpatialTemporal	technical	direct quotation	SpatialObject: "The general concept of spatial objects, including all points, paths, volumes, undivided wholes, etc." rdfs:subClassOf SpatialTemporal; owl:disjointWith TemporalObject. SpatialTemporal: "The generalized timespace object, under which all time and space objects lie." rdfs:subClassOf NonConsciousThing. TemporalObject (Time's own parent, per time.md) is confirmed rdfs:subClassOf SpatialTemporal also — i.e. SpatialObject and TemporalObject are siblings under the shared SpatialTemporal parent.	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	verified: GUM-31.owl, fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	SpatialTemporal functions as GUM's own explicit Space/Time common-parent category, directly analogous to GFO's Space_time — see note-002. This also surfaces a correction to time.md — see uncertainty-001.
GUM	GeneralizedLocation (+ the separate GUM-3-space.owl module)	technical	direct quotation	GUM-3-space.owl's own header: "This is the spatial module of GUM 3.0 which extends 'GUM-3.owl' with spatial notions." Defines 60+ classes, almost entirely directional/topological relation types (DirectionalRelation, Containment, Connection, named projections such as AboveProjection/FrontProjection, cardinal directions, etc.), not a dimensionality typology. GeneralizedLocation functions as the general spatial-extent node (rdfs:range of properties like destination, direction), the closest functional analog to a generic "spatial region," though never named Space/SpatialRegion itself.	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	verified: GUM-3-space.owl (Wayback snapshot, a separate module from core GUM-3.owl), fetched and read directly 2026-07-04	No parallel to Time's small OneOrTwoDTime/ThreeDTime dimensional typology exists on the Space side — GUM's spatial elaboration is oriented around directional/deictic relations (grounded, like its Time apparatus, in Halliday & Matthiessen's systemic-functional-linguistics clause theory) rather than region dimensionality. A genuine structural asymmetry between GUM's Time and Space modules, worth preserving rather than glossing over.

Source Ontology Correspondences

Correspondence ID	Source ontology	Source term	Source identifier or IRI	Source version	Reference	Inclusion rationale
xwkont:correspondence:space:001	BFO	Spatial region (+ zero-/one-/two-/three-dimensional)	BFO_0000006, BFO_0000018, BFO_0000026, BFO_0000009, BFO_0000028	BFO 2020 (directly verified 2026-07-04)	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020	Direct terminological and structural match; the only source formally classifying Space as a Continuant.
xwkont:correspondence:space:002	DOLCE	Space-region (+ physical-region)	http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DOLCE-Lite.owl#space-region, #physical-region	DOLCE-Lite v397 (directly verified 2026-07-04)	xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl	Direct terminological match; classifies Space as an independent abstract region, a sibling of Time under the same branch.
xwkont:correspondence:space:003	SUMO	Region	Region (SUMO/SUO-KIF term names are their own identifiers)	Current Merge.kif (directly verified 2026-07-04)	xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001	Confirms the seed's flagged divergence exactly — Region is a direct subclass of Object, the physical/concrete side, opposite TimeMeasure's abstract side.
xwkont:correspondence:space:004	UFO	(none)	not applicable — no class exists	Applied Ontology, 2021 (directly re-searched 2026-07-04)	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	No correspondence recorded; zero occurrences of any spatial vocabulary in the paper's full extracted text, and zero in the OntoUML vocabulary fallback.
xwkont:correspondence:space:005	GFO	Space (+ Spatial_region, Spatial_boundary, Topoid, Surface)	https://w3id.org/gfo/base/Space, /Spatial_region, /Spatial_boundary, /Topoid, /Surface	GFO 2024-11-18 (directly verified 2026-07-04)	xwkont:ref:gfo	Direct terminological match; the cleanest literal Space/Time sibling-pairing of any source, mirroring GFO's already-documented Time apparatus almost term-for-term.
xwkont:correspondence:space:006	TUpper	spatial_region (+ Curve, ArealRegion, VoluminalRegion)	not applicable — TUpper/PSL predicate names are their own identifiers	COLORE formalization, undated (directly verified 2026-07-04)	xwkont:ref:tupper-colore	Included despite not being promoted to TUpper's four flat top-level classes the way timepoint is — a structural asymmetry with Time.
xwkont:correspondence:space:007	GUM	Space (+ SpaceInterval, SpacePoint, SpatialObject)	http://www.ontospace.uni-bremen.de/ontology/stable/GUM-3.owl#Space (+ sibling IRIs in the same namespace)	GUM 3.1 (directly verified 2026-07-04)	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	Near-exact structural parallel to GUM's Time apparatus, including systematic class-by-class disjointness pairing with Time's counterparts.

No UFO correspondence is recorded — see Source Definitions and Uncertainty. No YAMATO correspondence is recorded either — no Space-related class was found in the one fetchable YAMATO document, though Space plays a more load-bearing informal role there than Time does (see note-003).

Semantic Comparison Notes

Note ID	Dimension	Claim type	Note	Supporting references	Confidence
note-001	philosophical	editorial observation	Unlike Time (where 5 of 6 sources with a Time category converged on treating it as independent of the occurrent/continuant split, per time.md's note-001), Space shows no comparable majority: BFO classifies spatial region as a Continuant; DOLCE files space-region as an independent abstract region (same pattern as its own Time treatment); SUMO files Region under Object/Physical, opposite TimeMeasure's Abstract side; GFO makes Space an explicit sibling of Time under Space_time (same pattern as its own Time treatment); GUM gives Space the same dual-parented, SpatialTemporal-descended structure as Time (same pattern). Only BFO and SUMO treat Space and Time as occupying genuinely opposed top-level branches; DOLCE, GFO, and GUM instead treat them as siblings of the same kind. This is a different, more fragmented divergence pattern than Time's own central finding, not a simple restatement of it.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl, xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001, xwkont:ref:gfo, xwkont:ref:gum-owl	high
note-002	philosophical	editorial observation	Three sources (DOLCE, GFO, GUM) give Space and Time an explicit shared parent category (region/abstract, Space_time, SpatialTemporal respectively) — resolving time.md's uncertainty-004 affirmatively for exactly these three sources. BFO and SUMO instead place Space and Time on opposite, non-sibling branches (Continuant/Occurrent; Physical/Abstract respectively), connected in BFO's case only via a defined cross-branch relation (spatially projects onto), not a shared ancestor.	xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl, xwkont:ref:gfo, xwkont:ref:gum-owl, xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001	high
note-003	philosophical	editorial observation	YAMATO's informal treatment of Space is more load-bearing than its treatment of Time: Space is a named criterial term in two of YAMATO's own top-level distinctions ("Substrate and entity" — space and time are jointly indispensable and entity-independent; the Physical/semi-abstract/abstract split, where "nothing... requires only space to exist" is itself a defining disjunction), whereas Time's mentions in the same document (per the existing time.md/ref-yamato-mizoguchi-2010.md record) were purely incidental usage ("an action exists in an open interval..."). Neither is a reified class, but Space's absence is a materially different kind of absence — informally load-bearing vs. informally incidental.	xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010	medium
note-004	technical	editorial observation	GUM's Space apparatus is split across two artifacts: the small, Time-parallel core (Space/SpaceInterval/SpacePoint/SpatialObject in GUM-3.owl) and a much larger separate module (GUM-3-space.owl, 60+ classes) elaborating directional, topological, and deictic relations (GeneralizedLocation, named projections, cardinal directions) with no Time-side counterpart at all. This is a genuine structural asymmetry between GUM's Time and Space treatment, not merely a difference in verbosity — Time has no analogous second module.	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	high
note-005	technical	editorial observation	TUpper's spatial predicates (spatial_region, Curve, ArealRegion, VoluminalRegion) are documented with informal-semantics prose but are not shown, in either the HTML terms document or the OWL rendering, as formal subclasses of TUpper's four flat top-level classes — unlike timepoint, which time.md found explicitly named inside the top-level owl:Thing union axiom. Space did not receive the same top-level promotion Time did in this source.	xwkont:ref:tupper-colore	high

Mapping Assertions or Candidate Relations

Mapping ID	Subject	Relation category	Object	predicate_id	mapping_justification	Status	Confidence	Rationale	Provenance
xwkont:mapping:space:001	BFO:Spatial region	overlap	DOLCE:Space-region	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	Same subject matter (spatial extent) but a genuine top-level classification divergence: BFO subsumes it under Continuant (immaterial entity); DOLCE files it as an abstract quality-space region, neither endurant nor perdurant. Not close-match because the classification difference is structural.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl
xwkont:mapping:space:002	BFO:Spatial region	overlap	SUMO:Region	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	Both are continuant/physical-side categories (BFO: continuant; SUMO: Physical/Object), closer to each other than either is to their own source's Time-side category — but "immaterial entity" and "topographic location under Object" are still distinct formal framings. medium, not a hedge value: the divergence itself is clearly evidenced (each source's own text quoted above), not a matter of incomplete sourcing — consistent with mapping-003's plain medium for the same kind of confidently-observed partial overlap.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001
xwkont:mapping:space:003	BFO:Spatial region	overlap	GFO:Space	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	BFO=continuant; GFO explicitly declares Space sui generis and disjoint from both Presential and Occurrent (i.e., neither continuant- nor occurrent-equivalent) — a similar non-occurrent classification but via a different top-level architecture.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:gfo
xwkont:mapping:space:004	DOLCE:Space-region	close-match	GFO:Spatial_region	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	high	Both are independent, non-occurrent, region-denoting categories with near-identical naming and near-identical mereological-sum framing ("regions... mereological sums" in GFO; region-of-a-metrics framing in DOLCE) — the closest structural pairing found in this crosswalk, mirroring time.md's equivalent DOLCE/GFO Time pairing.	xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl, xwkont:ref:gfo
xwkont:mapping:space:005	DOLCE:Space-region	overlap	SUMO:Region	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	high	Downgraded from close-match (2026-07-04 review pass) — both denote an ordinary spatial/geographic extent, but DOLCE's is an abstract quality-space region while SUMO's is a physical Object subtype — an abstract-vs-physical divergence, a stronger disagreement than differing scope/axioms within a shared formal kind (contrast mapping-004, where both sides are region-denoting categories on the same side of that divide). close-match per docs/methodology/crosswalk-methodology.md is reserved for concepts that align for many purposes despite differing scope/axioms/usage; an abstract/physical split is closer to overlap ("partially intersect but neither subsumes the other"). high confidence in the overlap category itself: the abstract/physical divergence is directly evidenced by each source's own text, not a sourcing gap or open question.	xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl, xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001
xwkont:mapping:space:006	GFO:Spatial_region	overlap	GUM:SpaceInterval	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	high	Downgraded from close-match (2026-07-04 review pass, for consistency with time.md's equivalent GFO/GUM downgrade) — both are decomposable, non-atomic spatial-region categories under a broader Space branch, with a parallel atomic counterpart (Topoid/SpacePoint), but GFO's grounding is metaphysical (Brentano) while GUM's is linguistic (Halliday & Matthiessen) — a difference in the kind of independence claimed, not just scope or axioms within a shared formal kind. high confidence in the overlap category: this grounding difference is directly stated in each source's own text, not an open sourcing question.	xwkont:ref:gfo, xwkont:ref:gum-owl
xwkont:mapping:space:007	BFO:Zero-dimensional spatial region	overlap	TUpper:spatial_region (point case)	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	high	Corrected from close-match (this pass): TUpper's spatial_region is a single undifferentiated mereotopology predicate, confirmed not dimensionally subdivided the way BFO's four classes are — a rough correspondence only for the point/zero-dimensional case, not the dimensional apparatus as a whole. close-match overstates a match confirmed only for one narrow sub-case; overlap (partial intersection, neither subsumes the other) is the correct category, and confidence is high because TUpper's lack of subdivision is directly confirmed in its own source file, not an open question.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:tupper-colore
xwkont:mapping:space:008	SUMO:Region	related	GUM:GeneralizedLocation	skos:relatedMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	high	Both function as the general spatial-extent/location node in their respective sources, but SUMO's is a topographic-location Object subtype while GUM's is a clause-level directional-relation range class grounded in systemic-functional linguistics — related in function, not close enough in formal apparatus for close-match. high confidence in the related category: the formal-apparatus divergence is directly evidenced by each source's own text, not an open sourcing question.	xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001, xwkont:ref:gum-owl
xwkont:mapping:space:009	xwkont-core:Space (candidate)	unknown	UFO	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	low	No UFO correspondence identified; zero occurrences of any spatial vocabulary in the paper's full extracted text or the OntoUML vocabulary fallback. Recorded explicitly per this repository's established practice for negative findings.	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021
xwkont:mapping:space:010	xwkont-core:Space (candidate)	unknown	YAMATO	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	low	No reified YAMATO correspondence identified in the one fetchable YAMATO document; scoped absence, not a settled claim — see note-003 for the more load-bearing informal role Space plays there relative to Time.	xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010

Uncertainty, Non-Equivalence, and Open Questions

Item ID	Type	Description	Impact	Follow-up
uncertainty-001	non-equivalence	This crosswalk's own research found that GUM's NonConsciousThing (an ancestor of SpatialTemporal, hence of both SpatialObject/Space and TemporalObject/Time) is itself rdfs:subClassOf SimpleThing. This corrects time.md's existing claim ("Neither Process ... nor SimpleThing/DecomposableObject ... is an ancestor of any GUM temporal class") — SimpleThing is an ancestor of GUM's Time, several levels up via TemporalObject → SpatialTemporal → NonConsciousThing → SimpleThing, confirmed by direct inspection of GUM-31.owl's NonConsciousThing block this session. By the same chain, GUM's Space also descends from SimpleThing.	time.md's Source Definitions row and note-003 (GUM) state the ancestor claim incorrectly; does not affect this crosswalk's own GUM correspondence, which cites the correct chain.	Correct time.md's GUM row and its note-003 at that document's next revision, referencing this crosswalk's directly-verified ancestor chain.
uncertainty-002	open-question	Where should xwkont-core:Space subclass from once added to data/ontology/core.ttl? Unlike Time (where uncertainty-001 there posed one open question against one dominant non-BFO pattern), Space's classification evidence is three-way split (BFO: continuant; DOLCE/GFO/GUM: independent sibling-of-Time category; SUMO: physical/concrete) with no clear majority to lean on. Whatever placement is chosen should be made jointly with (or at least cross-checked against) time.md's own eventual placement, given how many sources treat Space and Time as siblings.	Blocks final core.ttl placement; does not block continuing this crosswalk's research/review.	Decide at review time, jointly with time.md's own still-open uncertainty-001.
uncertainty-003	non-equivalence	UFO has no reified Space/SpatialRegion/Location class — confirmed this session by direct full-text search of the already-extracted 2021 paper (zero occurrences of six candidate terms) and the OntoUML vocabulary TTL fallback (also zero). A prior research pass on this same concept, run in parallel, reported being unable to access the paper at all and left UFO's status formally unresolved — that report is superseded by this session's own direct, successful full-text search of the cached extraction already on file for xwkont:ref:ufo-2021.	No UFO correspondence recorded (correspondence-004, mapping-009).	Re-check if UFO-A/UFO-C literature (already flagged as unfetched for information-artifact.md and time.md) becomes accessible.
uncertainty-004	open-question	This crosswalk does not address Boundary/Site (a separate 0.2.0-batch candidate), though BFO's site (an immaterial entity closely related to but distinct from spatial region) and GFO's Spatial_boundary/Surface are directly relevant background for that future crosswalk.	Scopes this crosswalk to Space only, consistent with ADR-0018's one-concept-per-pass process.	~~Create the Boundary/Site concept crosswalk later in the 0.2.0 batch~~ — done (boundary-site.md reviewed). Residual cross-check BFO's site/GFO's Spatial_boundary against this crosswalk's spatial region/Space findings.
uncertainty-005	open-question	TUpper's MaterialObject/ShapedObject classes exist as bare OWL declarations in owl/tupper.all.owl with no prose gloss in either the OWL file's comments or TUpper-Terms.html. Their exact relationship to spatial_region/physical_body is not stated anywhere fetched.	Does not affect this crosswalk's own TUpper correspondence (spatial_region/Curve/ArealRegion/VoluminalRegion, all of which do have prose definitions), but flags an incompleteness in TUpper's own public documentation.	Re-check if TUpper gains fuller documentation, or if the CLIF file (tupper.clif) contains axioms connecting these classes that the OWL rendering omits.

Provenance and References

• xwkont:ref:bfo-2020 — Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) 2020 / ISO/IEC 21838-2:2021 — verified directly against bfo-core.ttl, 2026-07-04
• xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl — DOLCE-Lite OWL translation — verified directly against DOLCE-Lite.owl, 2026-07-04
• xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001 — Towards a Standard Upper Ontology (Niles & Pease, 2001) — verified directly against current SUMO Merge.kif, 2026-07-04
• xwkont:ref:ufo-2021 — UFO: Unified Foundational Ontology (Guizzardi et al., 2021) — verified absence directly (full-text re-search for six spatial terms), 2026-07-04
• xwkont:ref:ontouml-vocabulary — OntoUML Vocabulary (OWL/Turtle) — verified absence directly (fallback check), 2026-07-04
• xwkont:ref:gfo — General Formal Ontology (GFO) — verified directly against modules/gfo-base.owl, 2026-07-04
• xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010 — YAMATO 2010 technical report (Mizoguchi) — verified absence, scoped directly against the extracted PDF, 2026-07-04
• xwkont:ref:tupper-colore — TUpper COLORE formalization (Grüninger) — verified directly against TUpper-Terms.html and owl/tupper.all.owl, 2026-07-04
• xwkont:ref:gum-owl — GUM 3.1 OWL (Bateman) — verified directly against GUM-31.owl and the separate GUM-3-space.owl module, 2026-07-04

Review History

Review ID	Date	Outcome	Notes
—	2026-07-04	Not yet reviewed — draft	Second concept of the 0.2.0 batch (ADR-0018), following time.md. Two independent research passes were run in parallel for cross-verification; where they disagreed (GUM's core Space class, and UFO's fetchability), the disagreement was resolved by a third, direct re-fetch and re-inspection of the primary artifact rather than by picking one report over the other — see uncertainty-001 and uncertainty-003 for the resulting corrections. Pending maintainer review before advancing to reviewed; core.ttl placement (uncertainty-002) is an open question to resolve at that review, jointly with time.md's own open placement question.
xwkont:review:space:2026-07-05:01	2026-07-05	Passed — advanced draft → reviewed	Checked against docs/governance/contributing.md's Review Checklist: scope preserved; every xwkont:ref:* citation resolves; correspondence/mapping/note/uncertainty ID numbering sequential (correspondences 001-007, mappings 001-010, notes 001-005, uncertainty 001-005); all confidence values within the ADR-0013 vocabulary. Correction (2026-07-06): this entry originally also claimed "the medium-high mapping/note each state a sourcing rationale" -- that claim was false on inspection during a full-corpus audit: mapping-002, mapping-005, mapping-006, mapping-007, mapping-008, and note-005 all used medium-high/low-medium with substantive/evidentiary rationales (differing formal framing, grounding, or scope), not the sourcing-change justification ADR-0013 reserves those values for. Fixed in the same audit pass: mapping-002 set to plain medium; mapping-005, mapping-006, mapping-008, and note-005 kept their already-correct relation category but raised to high confidence (the divergence itself is clearly evidenced, not a sourcing gap); mapping-007 recategorized from close-match to overlap (a match confirmed only for one narrow sub-case) at high confidence. See docs/methodology/crosswalk-runbook.md's governing principle for the audit method that found this. The 2026-07-04 external review's downgrade of mapping-005/mapping-006 from close-match to overlap remains confirmed correctly applied; the time.md GUM ancestor-chain correction (uncertainty-001) confirmed present in both files. uncertainty-002 (core.ttl placement — Space's three-way-split classification evidence) is not resolved by this review and remains deferred jointly with time.md's uncertainty-001, as separate data/ontology/core.ttl (Turtle-change) work — same precedent as time.md. Self-review, not independent third-party review.

Future Work

• ~~Resolve uncertainty-002~~ — done 2026-07-05: advanced draft → reviewed (xwkont:review:space:2026-07-05:01); core.ttl placement remains a separately-tracked open question, jointly with time.md's uncertainty-001.
• ~~Correct time.md's GUM ancestor-chain claim per uncertainty-001.~~ Done — applied in the same commit that drafted this file (b0f55ea); time.md's Source Definitions row and uncertainty-006 both carry the correction.
• ~~Create the Boundary/Site crosswalk next~~ — done (boundary-site.md reviewed). Residual cross-check against uncertainty-004.
• Re-check TUpper's tupper.clif file for axioms connecting MaterialObject/ShapedObject to the spatial-region apparatus (uncertainty-005).
• mapping-005 and mapping-006 downgraded from close-match to overlap in a 2026-07-04 external review pass — both paired categories of different formal kind (abstract/physical; metaphysical/linguistic grounding), consistent with the same downgrade applied to time.md's mapping-006/mapping-008.