In preparation for implementing this API, we have been reviewing the Resource views in the User Guide, for the below resources. This has identified 2 potential issues, consistent across each resource:
Each resource contains a 0..1 relationship with Bucket. Each resource also has a 0..* relationship with ImpactedBucket, which in turn has a 0..1 relationship with Bucket.
Issue #1 is how instances of these resources can be related to a maximum 1 Bucket via the Bucket relationship, but many buckets through the ImpactedBucket relationship. Is this an issue with the specification? Only logical thing I can think of is that the Bucket relationship is legacy and is retained for backwards compatibility?
Issue #2 is that to impact a bucket, I must have a bucket and so should the relationship between ImpactedBucket and Bucket in fact be 1..1? I can't think of a scenario where I'd have an ImpactedBucket but don't know the bucket.