Cultural Affiliation and its modelization

In issue #13, we've discussed about the modelization of the Cultural Affiliation and the Gender. It appeared it is two different subjects that need to separate issues.

Concerning Cultural Affiliation, our documentation states that:

This field indicates cultural, rather than legal, belonging to a group that is characterized by shared customs, mores, and practices revolving around common elements such as location, history, language, beliefs, culinary practices, etc. It revolves around collective values and identities and, as such, it is possible to have multiple affiliations at once. This belonging is not official in the sense that assent from the concerned group is not formalized or explicit.

As stated in issue #13, Cultural affiliation, understood as cultural milieu we live in and that we keep all our life does not have a joining and leaving event. A Swiss person, born and raised the first years of his life in Switzerland and then moved out to Canada during his teenage years, would have the Swiss culture, but would also imbued the Canadian culture if he stays in Canada for some years, even if he does not have the Canadian citizenship.

As there is no clear joining event, it seems improper to model this pattern with a joining and leaving event. Also, as there is no clear group of people of Canadian culture that can act together (unlike Canadian citizen), it seems that E74 Group is the wrong class for the Cultural Affiliation. We model it in the TM 2.1 with a simple E55 Type: E39 Actor -> p2 has type -> E55 Type -> p2 has type -> E55 Type (Cultural Affiliation)

Should we revise the definition of this field? It is quite vague but has the purpose of rendering the as-vague "culture" field found in many museums data model (although sometimes this "culture" field is linked to the object rather than the actor)
Would we need a more complex pattern?

chin-rcip / collections-model

Cultural Affiliation and its modelization #50