Re: Relationship Attributes linked with qualifiedName

2019-06-14 Thread Verdan Mahmood
Does anyone has experience with this, or any workaround? Or how can this be
solved in Atlas?

Best,
*Verdan Mahmood*
(+31) 655 576 560

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:35 AM Verdan Mahmood 
wrote:

> Hello guys,
>
> As it is really common to delete and re-create hive tables, this removes
> the entity in atlas and creates a new one. This results in all custom
> attributes to be removed also, along with all custom (manually added)
> relationshipAttributes to be lost as well.
>
> Was just wondering, if we do have a workaround for this? Can we make
> relations in an entity based on their qualifiedName instead of GUIDs?
>
> Best,
> *Verdan Mahmood*
> (+31) 655 576 560
>


Re: Relationship attributes

2017-07-25 Thread David Radley
Hi Madhan,
A couple of questions about this approach.

1)   When you say  AtlasRelatedObjectId or 
Collection 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 <mad...@apache.org>
To: David Radley <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com>, Graham Wallis 
<graham_wal...@uk.ibm.com>, Sarath Subramanian <sar...@apache.org>
Cc: "dev@atlas.apache.org" <dev@atlas.apache.org>
Date:   24/07/2017 23:57
Subject:Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:Madhan Neethiraj <mneethi...@hortonworks.com>



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
}

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" <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com> 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 <mad...@apache.org>
To: David Radley <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com>, "dev@atlas.apache.org" 

<dev@atlas.apache.org>
Cc: Sarath Subramanian <sar...@apache.org>, Graham Wallis 
<graham_wal...@uk.ibm.com>
Date:   24/07/2017 16:16
Subject:Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:Madhan Neethiraj <mneethi...@hortonworks.com>
 
 
 
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 <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Monday, July 24, 2017 at 3:39 AM
To: "dev@atlas.apache.org" <dev@atlas.apache.org>
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj <mneethi...@hortonworks.com>, Sarath Subramanian 
<sar...@apache.org>, Graham Wallis <graham_wal...@uk.ibm.com>
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 <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 
 
 

Re: Relationship attributes

2017-07-24 Thread Madhan Neethiraj
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 <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Monday, July 24, 2017 at 3:39 AM
To: "dev@atlas.apache.org" <dev@atlas.apache.org>
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj <mneethi...@hortonworks.com>, Sarath Subramanian 
<sar...@apache.org>, Graham Wallis <graham_wal...@uk.ibm.com>
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 <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: +44-1962-815356Tie: 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




Re: Relationship attributes

2017-07-24 Thread David Radley
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 <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: +44-1962-815356Tie: 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



Re: Relationship attributes

2017-07-24 Thread Nigel L Jones
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: +44-1962-815356Tie: 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



Re: Relationship attributes

2017-07-24 Thread Graham Wallis
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: +44-1962-815356Tie: 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



Re: Relationship attributes

2017-07-24 Thread Madhan Neethiraj
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





Re: Relationship attributes

2017-07-24 Thread David Radley
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


Re: Relationship attributes

2017-07-24 Thread Sarath Subramanian
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 
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
>