On 13 Mar 2013, at 10:39, Freek Dijkstra <Freek.Dijkstra@surfsara.nl> wrote:
On 13-03-2013 10:37, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
On 13 Mar 2013, at 10:07, Freek Dijkstra <Freek.Dijkstra@surfsara.nl> wrote:
So I suggest we should make the second form a MUST, and the first a SHOULD NOT. (Admittedly, the first form does no harm at all, and is useful. The reason for the strong SHOULD NOT is that it brings a risk of incompatibility if one organisation uses the first form, and another organisation uses the second form)
That is already covered by the first MUST. The SHOULD NOT would mean that we change the inherited behaviour of the Switching Service. If we keep that as a SHOULD, and the hasInboundPort as MUST, things work out.
You're correct.
If you could make a suggest what text to add/change/remove, that would be great!
I'm proposing to add the following to the Schema description of SwitchingService: The \emph{SwitchingService} inherits the \emph{hasPort} relation from \emph{Service}. The \emph{hasInboundPort} and \emph{hasOutboundPort} can be seen as more specific instantiations of the \emph{hasPort} relation, so these are preferred. Jeroen.