Now that makes sense. I had gone through your other post about the use of ODATA queries, but if you’re directly using the rels within the query parameters in that way, it would be certainly be a pain. Did this prove to be an issue in the client, integration or interoperation aspects, or simply just a huge annoyance when manually invoking certain calls?
It seems you came to the same conclusion about cardinality as I did in my previous post, so your relationship meta scheme looks very similar to the standard domain vocabulary model. However, I’m still on the fence I think regarding including curie / namespace and the target resource name within the relationship name. On one hand it could prove extremely helpful to a client trying to utilize the rel. However it could be welcoming a certain amount of snowflake qualities bank into the application, and clearly this would be an undesirable outcome. It might just be more beneficial to define the vocabulary and utilize the other benefits of hypermedia to fill in the information gaps.