SYSML2_ — Flow Connection End modeling - Different models created for definition through sytactic sugar vs fully expanded definition

It is possible to define flow connection usage in several ways.

One - use the simple/nice notation where syntactic sugar hides the underlying complexity:

flow of SomeItemDefinition from firstEndCon to secondEndCon;

Second- use full available detailed notation allowing precise definition of the characteristics of the flow ends:

flow of SomeItemDefinition {
    end ::> firstEndCon {
       //more end characteristics can be specified here:
       :>>sourceOutput, someFlowPropertyofEnd1;
    }
    end ::> secondEndCon {
       :>>targetInput, someFlowPropertyofEnd2;
    }
}

Sometimes the second, detailed way is the only way to define characteristics of the ends in the more complex cases. Now the problem is that two different models are created for these two cases. ItemFlowEnd is created for the first/nice/short case while simple ReferenceUsage is created for the full/complete case

It seems that ItemFlowEnd (meta)type is mostly a syntactic marker.So perhaps it would be possible to get rid of it entirely and make the two cases equivalent from the abstract syntax/model standpoint (by using just ReferenceUsage)?