HM: Add interpretational relations

[urapadmin]

This is about adding interpretative relations to the model that try to make sense of it but mustn't be mistaken for observations. They should come with comments, I suppose and perhaps one even wants to connect a bunch of images to them? At least one.

• I also think there might be different interpretational models or arguments? Ja, the latter is better because several different interpretational arguments could be enabled/disabled but looked at together. That's better than having whole models one cannot combine.

• Arguments (perhaps instead of the relations themselves?) might want an explanation (description) and perhaps link to files that support the argument.

• If one wants models they would just be a certain constellation of arguments (while other arguments are disabled).

• contemporary relations can draw in loci from other units

• don't forget about tags as identifiers.

[urapadmin]

see also how this could solve #2529 :

The original observation could be disabled in favour of an interpretational relation or even simply disabled (instead of deleted).

[urapadmin]

• take #2533 into consideration as it also is interpretation

[lbestock]

• I also think there might be different interpretational models or arguments? Ja, the latter is better because several different interpretational arguments could be enabled/disabled but looked at together. That's better than having whole models one cannot combine.

This. Please. This takes me back to discussions of CC and some of our very first foundational why we want digital recording and what interpretation is things. To be able to compare side by side the implications of two different interpretations?