Hi Sarath,
Great, personally for the Entity's current relationshipAttributes, I
prefer relationships as it is simpler - is there a reason you need
attribute in the name?
all the best, David.
From: Sarath Subramanian <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]>
Date: 24/07/2017 07:09
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
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
>
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
