> although I don't see other alternatives with our current design, I don't > like the above approach. Does that mean "nports" (of an aggregation) > would be a private link property?
I suppose aggregation attributes would have to be included in the (known field names) set. What makes things a bit simpler is the existing requirement that private property names must always start with underscore '_'. If we can create an additional requirement that no future link attribute will start with underscore, then we can simply establish material equivalence between leading underscore and private properties. -Artem
