Hi David, I agree with using the term 'relationship attributes' for attributes of relationship, I suggest we use "relatedAttributes" for relationship attributes of entity.
Thanks, Sarath Subramanian On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 2:22 AM, David Radley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Madhan, > When I see the phrase 'relationship attributes', I am never quite sure > whether we are referring to the attributes of an entity that relate to > another entity or the attributes of the relationship instance itself. I > think the phrase ' relationship attributes' more naturally fits as the > attributes of the relationship itself; we are using it in the other sense. > > I suggest we change the relationshipAttributes in the entity to > relationships (if you really want attributes in the name we could call it > relatingAttributes)- and use the term 'relationship attributes' purely for > the attributes of the relationship itself. What do you think? > all the best, David. > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU >
