Personally I think 'relatedEntities' is clearer.

Best regards,
  Graham

Graham Wallis
IBM Analytics Emerging Technology Center
Internet: graham_wal...@uk.ibm.com 
IBM Laboratories, Hursley Park, Hursley, Hampshire SO21 2JN
Tel: +44-1962-815356    Tie: 7-245356




From:   Madhan Neethiraj <mad...@apache.org>
To:     "dev@atlas.apache.org" <dev@atlas.apache.org>, Sarath Subramanian 
<sar...@apache.org>
Date:   24/07/2017 09:04
Subject:        Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mneethi...@hortonworks.com>



Current name of ‘relationshipAttributes’ makes sense looking from an 
entity point-of-view – it distinguishes regular-attributes of an entity 
from attributes injected by relationships. However, given that 
relationships can themselves might have attributes, it can be confusing.

I was going to suggest ‘relatedEntities’; but ‘relationships’ seems to be 
good choice.

+1 for naming the field as ‘relationships’.

Thanks,
Madhan


On 7/24/17, 12:53 AM, "David Radley" <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:

    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
 




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