[infod-wg] Optional association fields

[Dieter Gawlick]

Steve,

we should have one field; but it should allow multiple property 
constraints; i.e., constraints against more than one property vocabulary.

Dieter

Fisher, SM (Steve) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do we have a compelling reason to keep the two optional association
> fields for property constraints of the association and for policy of the
> association.
>
> If not we should get rid of them - or explain what they are 
>
> Do they appear in any exisiting use case?
>
> Steve
>
>