RE: [oslc-promcode] Re: resource value-type and container resource lifecycle

[Kazuhiro Funakoshi <k-f@bk.jp.nec.com>]

Members,

During updating resource shape, I found that defineFor:Target → Artifact seems no use.
This relation does not appear in fig.6 but fig.3.
Originally, Target was an independent resource type (or LocalResource), but now inline.

<http://example.com/promcode/item/42> a oslc_promcode:Artifact;
  oslc:target <http://example.com/promcode/item/42#target-3>.
<http://example.com/promcode/item/42#target-3> a oslc_promcode:Target;
  oslc:definedFor <http://example.com/promcode/item/42>.

Since they have same lifecycle, the definedFor range of <x#targe-y> always points to <x>.

However, it seems not making something bad though. Any ideas?

Regards,
Kaz

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature