[infod-wg] Optional association fields

[Dieter Gawlick]

Steve,

We could use the Sensor Use Case to provide an example. Once Arjun and 
Ronny are mostly done it is easy to add. Please add this as an action 
item for Arjun, Ronny and I.

Dieter


Fisher, SM (Steve) wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>     
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/infod-wg/attachments/20060428/60f21481/attachment.html