If Russell's suggestions can be made to work then that's great.

If not, another option for the use case where you want to define a members list and an id is to use an anonymous group as the Agent and an identified group as the team.

Not sure how that fits with the new query stuff?

fugu13 <notifications@github.com> wrote:

>In xAPI.md:
>
>> @@ -509,8 +512,7 @@ The table below lists all properties of an anonymous Group. > An identified group... > > * MUST include exactly one (1) inverse functional identifier; > -* MAY include a 'member' property listing constituent Agents; > -* MUST NOT contain Group objects in the 'member' property. > +* MUST NOT include a 'member' property 
>
>I'd like to forbid groups from even being members of other groups -- this isn't groups for organizational charts, this is a way of describing the actual Agents participating (insofar as that's useful). Also, while we say things like "marketing, support, and development attended the meeting", I'm not sure if we want to try to support that. We know what it means colloquially, and what we really mean is, representatives (Agents) who are right now in those parts of the organization attended, and I think that's handled fine by just having the individual agents identified as the Group members. Groups should mean "the Group as a whole", not "a representative of the Group" (though in some cases that distinction will get blurry, I don't think this is one of them).
>
>—
>Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.￼
>