Hi Madhan,
A couple of questions about this approach.
1) When you say AtlasRelatedObjectId or
Collection<AtlasRelatedObjectId> as the relationship type - are you
suggesting we should support both ? I cannot think of a case where we
might need the Collection.
2) On displayText - I was talking with Mandy. she brought up the point
that the entity level should not be concerned with what is displayed and
what is not. This is an OMAS consideration. At the entity level if the
qualified name was shown as part of the unique attributes in the
AtlasObjectId; this would work for my use case. I have raised this in Jira
1991. I suggest we remove displayText from AtlasRelatedObjectId.
I am OK with this suggestion if the above 2 points are addressed.
all the best, David.
From: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]>
To: David Radley <[email protected]>, Graham Wallis
<[email protected]>, Sarath Subramanian <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: 24/07/2017 23:57
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]>
David,
I would suggest going with the following:
class AtlasEntity {
// ...
Map<String, Object> attributes;
// ...
Map<String, Object> relationships; // Object type can be either
AtlasRelatedObjectId or Collection<AtlasRelatedObjectId>
}
class AtlasRelatedObjectId extends AtlasObjectId {
String relationshipGuid;
AtlasStruct relationshipInfo; // has 2 members: typeName, attributes
String displayText;
}
Thanks,
Madhan
On 7/24/17, 8:42 AM, "David Radley" <[email protected]> wrote:
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
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
