You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Should we generally adhere to the convention that attributes that can be multivalued (i.e. cardinality of 0..m or 1..m) should have plural names where applicable (e.g. references not reference, aleternativeLabels not alternativeLabel, contributions not contribution)
Note that there are some cases where we cannot pluralize the name of a multivalued attribute, based on how we have chosen to name the field. e.g. specifiedBy, or isAbout, or performedBy.
To Do:
Go through all attributes in the model and rename according to the conventions we adopt here. At present there is some inconsistency.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@mbrush I think we all agree this is a good convention. do we need to keep this open or can we declare that when we identify any inconsistencies in this practice we will fix them?
Do you want to take the To Do on above (or have you already)? Please assign to yourself, unless you don't feel like you can take this on? Also, if you've done this work already, please go ahead an close this ticket.
Should we generally adhere to the convention that attributes that can be multivalued (i.e. cardinality of 0..m or 1..m) should have plural names where applicable (e.g.
references
notreference
,aleternativeLabels
notalternativeLabel
,contributions
notcontribution
)Note that there are some cases where we cannot pluralize the name of a multivalued attribute, based on how we have chosen to name the field. e.g.
specifiedBy
, orisAbout
, orperformedBy
.To Do:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: