[infod-wg] Optional association fields

[Fisher, SM (Steve)]

> Steve,
> 
> all we need to do is to extend existing use cases, I could 
> use the Car Use Case as well. Actually, we did not cover all 
> functionally anyway. As far as I remember, nobody used 
> REPLACE or DROP yet. Do you feel we have to make sure that 
> all functions are used?
> 
> Dieter

Dieter,

It may not be necessary to show how they are all used. I just wondered
if in this case it was indicative that the functionality was not very
important. I will wait to see your example.

Have a good weekend

Steve

 
> Fisher, SM (Steve) wrote: 
> 
> 	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
> 					
> 					  
> 					      
> 		
> 				
> 				    
> 		
> 			
> 			  
> 		
> 		
> 		    
> 
> 	
> 	  
> 
>