Re: [PROPOSAL] Strict Schema
Ted Wilmes <twi...@...>
toggle quoted message Show quoted text
That's helpful input, Ranier, and brings up a good question as to how far we want to
go with this. I think one option would be to keep the PropertyKey type definitions as
they are now (global), but allow them to be mapped to specific vertex and edge
labels. The second would be more inline with what you're suggesting, if I'm understanding
correctly, which would be properties are only created in the context of a specific vertex
or edge label. This would be much more familiar to the way folks are used to using
an RDBMS, eg. the "name" property on Person, could be of a different type than
the "name" Property on a "Building" vertex. I think this could be particularly helpful
if we add other constraints in later. For example, say we have an "age" property
on a Person vertex and allow a user to specify a min & a max, or a not-null.
Ideally, they'd be able to specify a different constraint in the context of another
vertex/edge label. This could still be done with a global propertykey definition, but the
constraints then would be tied to the element label/propertykey tuple vs just the
I had put together some examples of the first simpler approach, but now that I
think about it, I'd like us to determine how far down this rabbit hole we should
go on the first pass of this schema support work with the high level options being:
1) Define property keys globally as they are now, but allow the user to map
them to vertex and edge labels. The implications is there is only one of each
property key (e.g. name is always a String)
2) Define property keys in the context of a specific vertex or edge label. There
can be more than one property key with the same name. Think column definitions in an RDBMS.
Historically, the first would be adequate for me in the majority of cases, but the
flexibility of the second would be quite powerful.
What do you all think would be most helpful based upon your day-to-day modeling work?
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:55:01 AM UTC-6, Rainer Pichler wrote: