[Nml-wg] Grouping relations (Relations in NML)
Freek Dijkstra
Freek.Dijkstra at sara.nl
Thu Jun 21 11:56:38 EDT 2012
Roman Łapacz wrote:
>> While updated the UML schema, I noted we are missing a few
>> group-to-element relations:
>>
>> ?????
>> ?????
>> ?????
[...]
>> ?????
>> ?????
>>
>> Can we use hasPort/hasLink for the 5 missing relations?
>>
>> hasPort
>> hasLink
> In my opinoin we don't have to use the relation element for mentioned
> cases. Simple inclusion would be enough.
I should have mentioned: I'm proposing this in the context of RDF, which
does require explicit names.
We indeed agreed on simple inclusion in in XML, and I don't think we
should change that.
So is the above fine in RDF or do we like something else, e.g.
contains .
Freek
More information about the nml-wg
mailing list