The Shadow-hierarchy Trade-off

[matentzn]

See #1539 for some basic background. Moving the discussion of this ticket here to make it easier to directly response to comments.

Based on our reading of https://douroucouli.wordpress.com/2022/08/10/shadow-concepts-considered-harmful/, we understand that there is a cost in introducing shadow hierarchies into our ontology:

• temperature
• temperature datum

Every time we introduce a shadow, we basically open the flood gates for a total duplication of the entire terminological space, which makes consistent curation across hundreds of institutions harder. However, not all shadows are equally problematic. For example, lead and lead exposure are two different concepts, referred to differently by the literature, with different disciplines caring about the one or the other

How can we recognise strong arguments for a "shadow" hierarchy in order to know when to avoid them, and when their introduction is worth the additional complexity?

(This ticket is a dumping ground for ideas):

1. Are there different specialities for studying each aspect? (lead vs lead exposure: yes. temperature vs temperature datum: no. forest as material entity vs forest as immaterial site: I would argue no)
2. Do these different aspects get reflected by distinct terms in the literature? (lead vs lead exposure: yes, vegan diet vs vegan diet exposure: no)