See saref-portal#52 * Class s4envi:PhysicalObject, aligned with the DUL top-level ontology. * Class s4bldg:PhysicalObject, aligned with the DUL top-level ontology. Exact same definition as in SAREF4ENVI, but different axiomatization: s4envi:PhysicalObject ⊑ ∀ s4envi:isContainedIn . s4envi:PhysicalObject, while s4bldg:PhysicalObject ⊑ ∀ s4bldg:isContainedIn. (s4bldg:PhysicalObject ⊔ s4bldg:BuildingSpace) * SAREF4INMA reuses s4bldg:PhysicalObject * OP s4bldg:contains has a different definition than s4envi:contains. * OP s4bldg:isContainedIn has a different definition than s4envi:isContainedIn. Decision made in ETSI TS 103 264 V3.2.1: > 1. An instance may be classified as both saref:FeatureOfInterest and geo:SpatialObject. > 2. The class saref:Device is a sub-class of geo:Feature from the GeoSPARQL standard [8, section 6.2]. In SAREF4ENVI: delete s4envi:PhysicalObject, s4envi:contains, s4envi:isContainedIn