Discussion: Historical hierarchies

[kintopp]

Review and correct sample RDF data and check mapping.

[kintopp]

I've reviewed this and found a possible error in the original data. I'm checking with our contributor.

[kintopp]

@gklyne I can't follow why lines 431-481 are in the Opele sample RDF. Aren't the historical hierarchies fully treated on lines 1499-1659?

[gklyne]

The "City of Opole" exists to the current day, and its immediate historical parents are recorded as part of that entity (lines 431-481).

The lines 1499-1659 define the historical places that no longer exist today. If the parent administrative regions still existed today, they would (presumably) each have a full current-day node and associated description.

Note that the admin hierarchy is defined by relation type
em:AH_PART_OF_AH, itself defined at line 220.

This in turn defines relations from em:P_OR_A places (populated or admin region - see line 197) and relates to any kind of admin region. Both of these are intended to allow current or historical places (assuming I interpreted the GeoNames gn:P and gn:A correctly).

[kintopp]

See also #17