Hi all,
I have just had a chat with Graham. we are thinking that we should go with
relationships as the top level name. We also think we could helpfully add
in the related entity in the new class like this:
class AtlasRelationshipObjectId {
AtlasObjectId relatedEntity;
String relationshipGuid;
AtlasStruct relationshipAttributes;
}
I think this gives us the best of both worlds,
regards David.
From: Graham Wallis <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]>, Sarath Subramanian
<[email protected]>
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: [email protected]
IBM Laboratories, Hursley Park, Hursley, Hampshire SO21 2JN
Tel: +44-1962-815356 Tie: 7-245356
From: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Sarath Subramanian
<[email protected]>
Date: 24/07/2017 09:04
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]>
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" <[email protected]> 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 <[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
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
