Question #2687
closedMultiple super for place
Description
As discussed in the last Welterbe meeting we still need a solution for multiple place supers.
Current scenario (simplified):- There are Places like estates
- There are Features like border stones
- A border stone can be located in two estates (directly at the border)
- They already need it for something different and will use it with the upcoming custom place type feature (#2505). If I remember correctly it was for "Kastralgemeinden".
- The places (e.g. estate) have a lot of additional information that can't be tracked via a type. So a "normal" entity is needed.
- How do we manage situations like
- A is super of B and C
- X is super of Y and Z
- But M has supers A and Y
- How would the breadcrumb work
- Danger of recursive relations
- It could break a lot of existing functionality
- Implement place subs (#2436) and allow only for places to have multiple super. In this case estates and border stones would be places.
- Implement that features can have multiple places as super
Although more work I would prefer the first approach because place subs would help with issues of other cooperation partners too.
Ideas how to solve this more easily or comments about implementing supers are welcome.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger 2 months ago
- Description updated (diff)
Because this issue will impact and bring challenges for many aspects (backend, frontend, API, ...) I added some people as watchers (feel free to remove yourself again).
I also added it to the agenda of the next Developer meeting in January.
Especial important will be the input from @Stefan Eichert, because I assume this will impact the archeological hierarchy a lot.
But it could also offer advantages for other desired features (not sure which ones right now but #1648 could have been one of them).
Updated by Alexander Watzinger 2 months ago
- Related to Question #2436: Structuring places added
Updated by Alexander Watzinger 2 months ago
- Target version changed from 9.2.0 to 9.1.0
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 2 months ago
@Stefan Eichert and I discussed it yesterday and he gave valuable input.
Because of CIDOC model related reasons we can't use P46 (is composed of) which we use for the existing hierarchy (see Archaeological sub units) to connect to multiple supers, so we have to think about alternatives.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger 1 day ago
- Tracker changed from Feature to Question
- Status changed from Acknowledged to Closed
Because the model won't allow for this approach and we found another solution for the Welterbe project, I'm changing this issue to a closed question in case we want to revisit it.