Re: [dxwg] Richer typing of relations in bag-of-files case (#730)

We do have the prefixes ```dctype``` and ```adms``` defined in the document. Should we use them too in this example?

Also, section D.1 ( for this PR), presents several representations by adding more details to the same example, which is nice. While this is clear by looking at the IDs, etc, it might be useful to spell it out in the presentation.

GitHub Notification of comment by agbeltran
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2019 22:49:04 UTC