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 <sar...@apache.org>
To:     dev@atlas.apache.org
Cc:     Madhan Neethiraj <mad...@apache.org>
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 <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com>
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

Reply via email to