add relationshipType and id

[simontegg]

No description provided.

[ahdinosaur]

shouldn't this label be something like "is parent group of {target}"?

[simontegg]

That's right.

This has evolved since then in my local. Since I'm developing this in tandem with the query branch I'll close this and do a pr when both are ready.

[ahdinosaur]

question: how do we feel about the ids being more like the labels? as in, instead of steward>stewardee it be stewards? i'm hoping to use these link type ids within the spreadsheet interface, so friendly ids are important for link types, having to know both roles seems unfriendly.

[simontegg]

👍 Good idea.

[simontegg]

People that are members of
People that belong to
People that are part of

N-gram search

[simontegg]

Groups that are part of
Groups that are subgroups of
Groups that belong to

Ngram search

[simontegg]

groups that include
groups that contain
has subgroup

Ngram search

[ahdinosaur]

hmm, thanks for the data, but i question the usefulness of these ngram searches. if a phrase is used the most within existing literature, that doesn't really tell us anything about whether it's a good idea to use in Holodex. in fact i wonder if in some cases the opposite is true, a generic phrase may be common but might also be confusing (e.g. "belongs to", "includes" "contains"). a poll of users would be ideal, but i feel good with us going with our gut on these naming questions, as no matter what it's impossible for us to truly know what is best, there are no objective answers to these questions.

[simontegg]

@ahdinosaur this branch works with the query on app and should be good

[ahdinosaur]

this line shouldn't exist

[simontegg]

ok @ahdinosaur less bikeshedding more compliance