Comparison between the current abstract model with Athlib

Hi Andy, Andy,

Although technical discussions should be carried within Github, I bring
this issues here because it's an early exercise related to Athlib.

I did the exercise of developing the first version of the model without
having the existing Athlib schemas in mind, just to have an independent
point of view. It was a good idea because now I can see differences and
improve both models.

Currently I'm adapting the model I created [1] to the Athlib proposal [2]l.
Food for thought (and comment):

Competitions and events. I agree with this. Actually, first I created the
same structure but swapping both concepts. Now aligned, so:
 - Competition ---has---> Event(s)

EVENTS:

Combined events in my model are modeled as follows:
  - event (pentathlon)
     |---has combined event --> event (60H)
     |---has combined event --> event (HJ)
     |---has combined event --> event (SP)
     |---has combined event --> event (LJ)
     |---has combined event --> event (800)

Number of events can be calculated or just adding a new attribute like in
athlib.

ROUNDS:

My model created several entities to model 'Rounds' that can solve some of
our challenges in a smart way. For instance, we could avoid the "startWave"
attribute in road races. Each event and sub-event may have rounds. If only
one, it's the final.

RELAYS:

I consider relay events as yet another event. In this case a 'Team'
participates, instead of just an athlete.

For this I propose the entity 'competitor' that can be either an 'athlete'
or a 'team'. Athletes can be affiliated to different teams for
competitions, even temporary ones (e.g. National teams). I did this because
teams in relay events will compete more or less the same as athletes in
individual competitions (in rounds, performances, setting records, etc.).
Anyway athletes will have also results and performances.

- All the info Athlib requires for events and rounds is included in the
model. I just need to include some properties like prizeCategories, but
first I need to understand them :-).

RESULTS:

My proposal is having two entities. The main one is 'result' (with all the
info about ranks, bib, chip, etc.), linked to the 'athlete', and linked to
the achieved 'performance'.

I've included important information about result features about
disqualifications, yellow cards, 'under protest' trials, etc. This
information could be of interest to model 'start lists'.

START LISTS:

This is not included in Athlib but I think we should model it in OpenTrack.
These lists are similar to results, but prior the competition. So they will
have common attributes.

DISCIPLINES:
Ahtlib proposal seems to be complete so, maybe I should use it to model the
specific type of events (e.g., distanceBoard for horizontal jumps).
Although all are 'events' I could model sub-entities for each type of
discipline with those specific

All performances are modeled using just as 'value' + 'unit' (standard)
Example1:
performance: {
  value: 11.01,
  unit: 'SEC'
  }
Example2:
performance: {
  value: 5.32,
  unit: 'MET'
  }
Example3:
performance: {
  value: 403933,
  unit: 'POINTS'
  }

I'm open to discuss all of this. Please tell me what you think.

Best,

Martin

[1] https://github.com/w3c/opentrack-cg/blob/master/spec/model/overview.md
[2] http://opentrack.run/athlib/build/html/schemas.html