I’m afraid I made a typo. The comment should have read (with erratum in red):
I noticed that the PIM removed two of the three attributes in the LinkType class (URI and linkedUid, leaving reference). With LinkType only having a single attribute, it becomes somewhat extraneous. Why not just have the RelationLink.link point to the reference as a URI || String || UID as documented for LinkType.reference, rather than pointing to a LinkType that points to reference?
Addendum:
I forgot to also raise the question of cardinality. RelationLink.link is shown as mandatory, with LinkType.reference as optional. This seems an odd construction. If you believe that every instance of RelationLink must link to something, then LinkType.reference should be mandatory. If you think it may sometimes not link to something, then RelationLink.link should be optional.
- Steve
Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.
Distinguished Research Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
NASA Research Park
Building 23 (MS 23-11)
P.O. Box 1
Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001
Email: steve.ray@sv.cmu.edu
Phone: (650) 587-3780
Cell: (202) 316-6481
Skype: steverayconsulting
