Hi Madhan, I agree with you that AtlasRelationshipObjectId could be confusing; good point.
I am thinking - relatedEntities is a good name if we want to focus on the target entities; in this case it makes sense to extend the objectid - as this focuses on the target entity. I think this might be a bit confusing as there could be multiple relationships to the same target guid. The type and guid that we inherit has no context; we need to know that they refer to the target entity. - relationships is a good name if we want to focus on the relationship; in that case it makes sense to the have the relationship specific information as top level and the referred to entity as embedded; which gives context to the guid and type. The content is effectively one ends view of the relationship. I can see both ways; I am marginally on the relationship rather than referredEntities; as you will have seen I have coded this up based on your +1! I can redo this if the you and the community prefer the relatedEntities. all the best, David From: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]> To: David Radley <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Sarath Subramanian <[email protected]>, Graham Wallis <[email protected]> Date: 24/07/2017 16:16 Subject: Re: Relationship attributes Sent by: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]> As I said earlier, I prefer “relatedEntities” – as this name states that the values in this attributes are references to entities. I think “relationships” is good as well. However, I would prefer to use “AtlasRelatedObjectId” instead of “AtlasRelationshipObjectId” – as “RelationshipObjectId” might be confused with an instance of a relationship. Also, I think we should have “AtlasRelatedObjectId” extend “AtlasObjectId” (instead of embedding as an attribute). Thanks, Madhan From: David Radley <[email protected]> Date: Monday, July 24, 2017 at 3:39 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]>, Sarath Subramanian <[email protected]>, Graham Wallis <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Relationship attributes 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 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
