[Nml-wg] Grouping relations (was: Relations in NML)

[Freek Dijkstra]

[Sorry for this resent. I just dumped crappy Postbox mail client, and
went back to Thunderbird. Let's see if that does not screw up plain text
that contains HTML-like constructs...]

Roman Łapacz wrote:

>> While updated the UML schema, I noted we are missing a few
>> group-to-element relations:
>>
>>  <BidirectionalPort> ????? <Port>
>>  <BidirectionalLink> ????? <Link>
>>  <Topology|Node> ????? <Link|LinkGroup>
[...]
>>  <PortGroup> ????? <Port>
>>  <LinkGroup> ????? <Link>
>>
>> Can we use hasPort/hasLink for the 5 missing relations?
>>
>>  <NetworkObject>  hasPort<Port>
>>  <NetworkObject>  hasLink<Port>

> 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.
<Group> contains <NetworkObject>.

Freek