Bug #472

Updated by Stefan Eichert over 7 years ago

*still open*

- wrong domain E6 for P14 (performed at a destruction)
_tricky thing... Actually it should be possible to link an actor with a destruction (as performer) but it isnt... Working on this_
_on the other hand one can link an actor with the production E12 as it is a subclass of E11 which is a subclass of E7 (activity)_
_problem is that production should have the same status as destruction but destruction is not a subclass of activity_

_Suggestion 1 (dirty): We ignore this and allow E6 with p14_
_Suggestion 1 (clean): We link actors to E6 with p11_
_Question: the cidoc wiki says that if the destruction is performed by actors and done on purpose then it is an E6 and E7 at the same time_
_How is this meant? How can we implement this?_

- what should happen if an E8 (Acquisition) event with P22/23 relations is updated to another class, e.g. E6? The system only checks creating of links so there would be no error and the P22/23 relations would still be existing.
_also tricky... some suggestions:_
_1. alert if this happens and ask if the P22 etc. links should be deleted_
_2. lock the class of a E8 event once there is a P22 or similar link_

*To do*

-E5 to E7-
-P22/23 are only selectable if class of event is E8-
-update schema-


wrong domain E5 for P14

_solution: we do not use E5 but E7 (Activity). It goes with P14_

Also: wrong domain E5 for P22 ...

_solution: we allow P22 only with E8 (same with E23) and P22/23 are only selectable if class of event is E8_

Happens when trying to add an actor to an event (E5) and defining his activity as e.g. performed.

I'm not sure about that but domain for P14 is E8 which is a grandchild of E5 and I assume one can't link the grandparent.

_as E8 is a subclass of E7 it should be possible to link a person via P14 to an E8 event, for example as the "Master of Ceremony" that confirms the Aquisition_

If this is not possible we could fix it with only allowing legitimate activity for the event class.