[VEP-003]: datalink/core#sibling

[Markus Demleitner]

Dear DAL,

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:17:25PM +0100, François Bonnarel wrote:
>  * When I proposed VEP0001 immediately after Groningen Interop I could
>    not imagine that such a controversy discussion would occur.
>      o Before considering the use case we have I would like to go back
>        to the current usages of DataLink I know.

Of course we need to work out how we will cover the "Figure out SAMP
Target" use case in Datalink.  However, donning my semantics hat I'd
be grateful if we could keep this effort separate from evaluating
#sibling -- the two questions got entangled by accident and are
really orthogonal to each other: SAMP target finding applies just as
well to #this, #progenitor, or #derivative.  Also, if we find we do
want to use semantics for SAMP target finding, the additional terms
can be introduced independently of #sibling as such.

So... it would be great if people could indicate support for or
distaste with #sibling (both the concept and the term), as well as
possible changes or improvements, in this thread, while ideally
moving the SAMP target finding discussion to a separate thread.  

That, in particular, is a friendly gesture towards future readers:
You see, I would like to link this thread from VEP-003's discussion
section, and when our future colleagues try to figure out what we
were thinking when making #sibling, they will be grateful if they
didn't have to read through a lot of essentially unrelated discussion
on Datalink proper.

Thanks,

           Markus

...who wishes you all a peaceful and refreshing holiday season...