Resource descriptors feel a little too generalized

[jrschumacher]

It's hard to determine when a property should be part of the resource definition vs a resource descriptor.

Currently, resource descriptors contain the following properties:

• type: type of resource
• id: unique resource identifier
• version: resource version
• name: resource name
• namespace: resource namespace for partitioning resources
• fqn: fully qualified name
• labels: labels
• description: long description of the resource
• dependencies: resource dependencies

Attributes have the following props:

• rule
• name
• values
• group_by
• descriptor

It is understandable that resources share common properties, but some of the properties feel like they need to be top-level definition properties. I would say anything required should be top-level.

Attributes require:

• id // auto-generated
• name
• description
• namespace
• values
• group_by

[jakedoublev]

Just to expand on this, I experienced (attribute) service behavior that seemed like the Attribute ID and Definition.Descriptor_.Id were both required in Update calls, and would get success responses back with no apparent DB changes in some cases. It seemed like those two Id fields might need to be the same but it isn't very clear if there is a distinction, or if not, if we do indeed need to pass the same Id in two places.

[jrschumacher]

Fixed with #51