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

Roman Łapacz wrote:

...

While updated the UML schema, I noted we are missing a few group-to-element relations:

????? ????? ????? [...] ????? ?????

Can we use hasPort/hasLink for the 5 missing relations?

hasPort hasLink 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. contains . Freek