Artem Kachitchkine wrote: > >> 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. > I think having an established syntax for private link properties is needed. I don't think we should add things like "nports" as reserved field name, as those names set probably would be expanded even further while more and more classes of links are supported.
Thanks - Cathy
