I'm good with relatedEntities
- relationshipAttributes is definately confusing
- relationships isn't clear to me
other options could include
- relatedEntityAttributes - but is a little longwinded
- injectedAttributes - another option but perhaps unclear for some
----
Nigel Jones, Analytics CTO Office - jon...@uk.ibm.com
From: Graham Wallis <graham_wal...@uk.ibm.com>
To: dev@atlas.apache.org
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj <mneethi...@hortonworks.com>, Sarath Subramanian
<sar...@apache.org>
Date: 24/07/2017 09:58
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
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
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
