Re: Separate concepts for "service" and "targetResource?" (was RE : /service/@targetResource ?)

Assaf Arkin wrote:
> In the case would it be fair to say that this is nothing than some common name that correlates multiple service definitions together? Something like a service set. 

This is also my understanding, from the discussion so far. And if so, 
the concept is interesting and, I think, possibly useful, but 
"targetResource" is a bad name for it.

Also if you don't allow >1 target resource/service, I fail to see why 
you just aren't using aggregration rather than a linking concept .. IMO 
the whole reason for needing this comes from not allowing > 1 interface 
per service (which our rep opposed, I believe).

--Jon