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

[Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>]

Kaz,

Yes, I agree with you that oslc_promcode:definedFor is redundant since
if we are give the URI of a Target resource then we can find the URI
of the Artifact via oslc_promcode:target. These are inverse properties
so only one is needed from a vocabulary point of view. Furthermore,
Target resources are always inlined in the Artifact resource.

I recommend that we eliminate oslc_promcode:definedFor.

-- Arthur

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Kazuhiro Funakoshi <k-f@bk.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> 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
>