atlas-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Radley <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Relationship attributes
Date Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:42:02 GMT
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 <madhan@apache.org>
To:     David Radley <david_radley@uk.ibm.com>, "dev@atlas.apache.org" 
<dev@atlas.apache.org>
Cc:     Sarath Subramanian <sarath@apache.org>, Graham Wallis 
<graham_wallis@uk.ibm.com>
Date:   24/07/2017 16:16
Subject:        Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mneethiraj@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_radley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Monday, July 24, 2017 at 3:39 AM
To: "dev@atlas.apache.org" <dev@atlas.apache.org>
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj <mneethiraj@hortonworks.com>, Sarath Subramanian 
<sarath@apache.org>, Graham Wallis <graham_wallis@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_wallis@uk.ibm.com> 
To:        dev@atlas.apache.org 
Cc:        Madhan Neethiraj <mneethiraj@hortonworks.com>, Sarath 
Subramanian <sarath@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_wallis@uk.ibm.com 
IBM Laboratories, Hursley Park, Hursley, Hampshire SO21 2JN
Tel: +44-1962-815356    Tie: 7-245356




From:   Madhan Neethiraj <madhan@apache.org>
To:     "dev@atlas.apache.org" <dev@atlas.apache.org>, Sarath Subramanian 
<sarath@apache.org>
Date:   24/07/2017 09:04
Subject:        Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mneethiraj@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_radley@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 <sarath@apache.org>
   To:     dev@atlas.apache.org
   Cc:     Madhan Neethiraj <madhan@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_radley@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



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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message