[BUG] - isComponent description is not very clear

[rhiaro]

Summary of the bug or issue

The description of isComponent is hard to follow, and I think it still contains some text/concepts from earlier version of BODS.

Whether this entity is a component in an indirect relationship. Where isComponent is 'true': (1) the recordId of this entity MUST be an element in the componentRecords array of that primary Relationship Statement, (2) this Entity Statement MUST come before that primary Relationship Statement in a BODS package or stream, (3) the replacement of this Entity Statement SHOULD be considered when replacing the primary Relationship Statement. The primary Relationship statement MUST have a isComponent value of 'false'.

In (1) the componentRecords property is on the Relationship Record object, so referring to "Relationship Statement" here threw me off.

(3) makes more sense with replacesStatement, which has been deprecated. I think it should be removed, or replaced with clearer non-normative guidance about updating records / making new statements, because "be considered" is a vague normative requirement in any case.

[kd-ods]

Thanks, @rhiaro! Yes, you're right that 0.4 only saw a minimal update to the the isComponent and componentRecords fields - and they need a good reworking/rethinking.

Given the other changes in BODS 0.4 (particularly, addition of the declaration field and better specification for handling information updates), I wonder whether we need the 'component' feature at all.