On 13 Mar 2013, at 11:02, Freek Dijkstra <Freek.Dijkstra@surfsara.nl> wrote:
On 13-03-2013 10:55, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
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.
That doesn't seem correct.
hasPort, in the current schema, is NOT a "more general" variant of "hasInboundPort" or "hasInboundPort" (although we previously had something like that). Instead, "hasPort" is used for specifying items in a Group: e.g. <PortGroup A-D> 'hasPort' <Port A>.
In particular, the domain of a hasPort relation may not be a Service.
Right, my apologies, this should of course be about the hasService relation that a Port object has. So, it should be like this: A \emph{Port} object can have a \emph{hasService} relation, however the \emph{SwitchingService} defines a more specific relation \emph{hasInboundPort} / \emph{hasOutboundPort} relation to a \emph{Port} object. The latter relation is preferred over the \emph{hasService} relation of the \emph{Port} to the \emph{SwitchingService}.