[infod-wg] Optional association fields

[Fisher, SM (Steve)]

Do you have a example of the use of the fieature in the current use case
doc? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-infod-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-infod-wg at ggf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Dieter Gawlick
> Sent: 28 April 2006 15:07
> To: Fisher, SM (Steve)
> Cc: Ronny Fehling; Stephen Davey; infod-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: Re: [infod-wg] Optional association fields
> 
> 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
> >
> >   
> 
>