• Type: Improvement
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Priority: Major
    • 1.2
    • Affects Version/s: 1.2
    • Component/s: Spec
    • None

      Plans become much easier to read if we allow people to simply refer to a `type` in their artifact/service/requirement definitions.

      Calling them `aritfact_type` and `service_type` and `requirement_type` is just long-winded and redundant in almost all cases.

      I suggest accepting the longer form `xxx_type` for an `xxx` in case there is any ambiguity.

            Assignee:
            Gilbert Pilz (Inactive)
            Reporter:
            Alex Heneveld (Inactive)
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: