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
Membership in arbitrary Sets #346
Comments
There's a json-ld issue with |
Forgive me I cannot find where we explain what problem If I remember correctly, we discussed |
We have used Sets for:
I think the what it /can/ be used for an what it /should/ be used for is the distinction you're drawing. I agree that an arbitrary set of a Type and a Place is not meaningful without a lot more context, but ruling out at the ontology level that Types and Places cannot be grouped together seems equally arbitrary and unnecessary. In the profile, we can enumerate and describe the scenarios in which this would be useful. Really what would be the best is for Set (or Temporary Aggregate as Martin calls it) to be a super-class of Group, and for Group to use member_of from Set. But that's for another SIG meeting :) |
Further Use Cases from discussion: Discussion on call of 2020-07-01: Useful from a practical perspective for covering use cases, if not for reasoning or strong semantics. Should use for "real" sets that are grounded in data, not as a stand-in for a relationship. Need docs and examples to demonstrate the usage. |
Closing, done -- all entities in API can be member_of a Set, and documented in the Collections/Sets model page. |
In starting to document the set of properties that can be expected in a response, I ran into
member_of
... e.g. that any entity can be a member of aSet
. As we go from the many to the few (e.g. pages in a book, paintings in a collection), that means thatmember_of
should be possible for any primary entity.Thus, a
Place
should be able to bemember_of
aSet
as well aspart_of
another (larger)Place
.Agree?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: