Should not SOE get an in-statement variant?

[davidzbiral]

Sometimes SOE is expressed in the text in ways which seem to be the same order of thing as in-statement CLA and in-statement IDE (and BTW, IDE is quite close to SOE: it is different ontological relations but from the same family). Thus, we should consider whether we don't want to have in-statement SOE.

One clear example: "intraverunt omnes suprascripti et suprascripte in quandam cameram dicte domus ": here it is the text itself, not external knowledge, which is the type of situations in which, for CLA and IDE, we use the in-statement variant.

Another use, which however must be discussed, is to use precisely a group "omnes predicti", and only by SOE relation decompose it into persons. This seems more CASTEMO-consistent, but introduces some complications: e.g. it would have to be done on pseudo-actants (because we would save SOE, not the inverse relation of subordinate entity), and some extra complications for data retrieval (queries).