Grouping "sides" in battles etc

[nickdrummond]

It can be confusing who is on which "side" - we're really just relying on the users' knowledge:

Could we make this more explicit in the model?

First thoughts

• looks a lot!
• the things that happen to those individuals cannot happen in the group descriptions as they are just about membership, so people being killed or captured etc would still need to be stated elsewhere

[nickdrummond]

And anyway, we'd have to add "participatedIn or memberOf some (Group and participatedIn...)"

[nickdrummond]

What about a conflict such as War including an Attack and a Defence with the appropriate participants?

[nickdrummond]

[nickdrummond]

Solves the problem of being specific about the roles/outcomes for the individuals in the Attacking and Defending sides.

Still harder to parse in a large expression (but if we "Abox transform" the sub events then its better.

[nickdrummond]

Problem is, existing Attacks include all the participants, including those on the receiving end.

If we wanted sub fights etc, they would need to be in the parent event - does this scan?