New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
“Followed by” should consult chronology relation #748
Comments
This type of tagging was very experimental; inspired by Who's On First's The automation of Sometimes there will need to be either automated connections through wikidata or some accomodation for manual tagging to support linkages between different chronologies. Small examples in the US would include West Virginia preceded by Virginia or Tennessee preceded by the Southwest Territory preceded by UFT preceded by North Carolina, etc. The need for supporting non-automated tagging is clearer in the case of commercial tenants of a building in neighborhood histories. I'd suggest the lack of proper use is somewhat tied to a lack of documentation and education, but also not saying that if we had great docs and great training that it would still be more widely adopted. |
To the extent that something needs to be explicitly modeled as a successor to something else, they can be part of a shared chronology relation. A feature can be part of multiple chronologies; a chronology represents whatever we’d describe as a definite historical progression, such as the concept of a successor state. That said, I don’t see a strong need for explicit tagging in the case of West Virginia and Virginia. It’s already quite evident that West Virginia split from Virginia based on the spatial overlap. |
The “Followed by” functionality is practically unused because it relies on undocumented
followed_by:name
andfollowed_by
keys that are used four and 165 times worldwide, respectively. However, it requiresfollowed_by
to contain a URL, which is never the case as of writing. The inspector should instead link to the next feature in thechronology
relation(s) of which the element is a member, assuming that the chronology relation is chronologically sorted.https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/ohm-inspector/blob/901cd7e0f7063b3abb677e6a38cb66c9841fbc9d/openhistoricalmap-inspector.js#L262-L263
/ref #189
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: