While loading one of my existing models, I remarked that the semantics of FAMIXReference have been changed: earlier it was an association between two containers and hence much more permissive. Now it is an association between a method (from side) and a type (to side). 

Although I agree that the semantics are clearer, sometimes we have the need to represent an association/dependency between two entities. It happens because we are reading from a abstracted source of information (e.g. a description of the model from a modelling tool) that does not have the code-level details. 

So it will be good to have a more generic dependency. Hence, the question: 

1. Does it make sense to add a generic dependency (between two containers? sourced entities?)? 
2. Should it be named FAMIXDependency as the word dependency can have different meanings to different people (all dependencies of an entity may be its "computed" dependencies from the dependencies of its children or aggregate of all types of dependencies e.g. accesses, invocations, etc.). So, we need to be careful about the naming.

With moose-chef, I would have to tell which entities have this dependency for correct computation of the dependencies but with MooseQuery, we should not have this problem because this information is inferred from the meta-model, right?