[infod-wg] Optional association fields

[Fisher, SM (Steve)]

It may be that as you don't have an example yet - but need to add one -
that this does not belong in the base spec. Do people consider it to be
somehow fundamental?

> -----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 17:11
> To: Fisher, SM (Steve)
> Cc: Ronny Fehling; Stephen Davey; infod-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: Re: [infod-wg] Optional association fields
> 
> 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
> 			
> 			  
> 			      
> 
> 		
> 		    
> 
> 	
> 	  
> 
>