From the comment list: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/camp-comment/201309/msg00078.html
TAB issue: https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TAB-92

Currently reads:

*****
This type describes an artifact of the application.
*****

1) type -> node? Yes?

2) cf my comments on "general representation"

3) It isn't clear if this is a production or an example. BTW, I was confused by the example not including the ArtifactSpecification node so I could judge my location in the PDP.

You write:

*****
name: String ?
description: String ?
tags: ?

• String +
  artifactType: String
  content: ContentSpecification
  requirements: ?
  -
  RequirementSpecification +
  *****

When:

*****
ArtifactSpecification
name: String ?
description: String ?
tags: ?

• String +
  artifactType: String
  content: ContentSpecification
  requirements: ?
  -
  RequirementSpecification +
  *****

Would be clearer, given the similarity in syntaxes, at least to me.

For that matter, I would have put the production (if that is what it is) at the end of 4.3.3 and not at the front. So I have all the definitions before it.

4) BTW, since artifactType and content are both true, can I then have:

*****
ArtifactSpecification
name: String ?
description: String ?
tags: ?

• String +
  artifactType: String
  requirements: ?
  -
  RequirementSpecification +
  content: ContentSpecification
  *****

?

The ordering of nodes question that I posed earlier in another context.

5) The "production" in 4.3.2 DeploymentPlan indicates that ArtifactSpecification occurs at least once or more times. But the language in 4.3.3, addresses an artifact described by the ArtifactSpecification with MAY be located language. Better to move the MAY language elsewhere, say as 4.3.3.4 Location of Artifacts.