I'm putting up my TypeDB schema and I have the entity problem which is caused by many different things, e.g. by a certain practice or a certain factor.
I specified the relation causing like:
causing sub relation,
relates causer,
relates caused,
I don't see in the documentation whether now both entities practice AND factor can play the role causer. It would be great if someone could answer this or point me to a more extensive documentation TypeDB or even an extensive example.
The relationship roles that each entity can play are defined on the entity definitions themselves.
So, if you wanted both practice and factor entities to play 'causer' you would define:
practice plays causing:causer;
factor plays causing:causer;
Here is the documentation on role definitions: https://docs.vaticle.com/docs/schema/concepts#entity-to-play-a-role
Related
I am currently enrolled in the Online Oracle Academy Database Design course, which briefly delves into the use of Matrix Diagrams to make sure all possible relationships are covered in an Entity Relationship Diagram.
The following practice problem was supplied by the course, instructing us to complete a matrix diagram for four entities: RUNNER, CITY FOR RACE, RACE TYPE, and RUNNING EVENT
The following is the supplied solution from the course:
I was able to find the following alternative solution for the same problem:
My concern stems from just how radically different these two ERDs are from each other. Is it better practice to come up with as many relationships as possible, even going so far as to fill out all boxes in the Matrix Diagram, or do something more akin to the first solution. Or is this simply an issue which should be handled based off of the current situation and the needs of the business that we are creating the ERD for?
They are not radically different. The second ERD has all the relationships of the first, it just expands due to the presumption that the knowledge that:
a runner has visited a city (if for instance you want to know if runners actually made it to a race after having registered for it)
an event may consist of multiple race types, implying a different model for what an event actually is
or that a runner has chosen a race type (I'm having a more difficult time thinking of a sensible reason here, but there are possibilities)
is important to whatever it is this database is supporting.
If you do not have such a reason to track a relationship, it's wasted effort to do so. It's good to keep future possibilities in mind when considering whether you have a reason, but Ockham's Razor is very much a guiding principle in schema design.
I have seen an article in Dzone regarding Post and Post Details (two different entities) and the relations between them. There the post and its details are in different tables. But as I see it, Post Detail is an embeddable part because it cannot be used without the "parent" Post. So what is the logic to separate it in another table?
Please give me a more clear explanation when to use which one?
Embeddable classes represent the state of their parent classes. So to take your example, a StackOverflow POST has an ID which is invariant and used in an unbreakable URL for sharing e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/q/44017535/146325. There are a series of other attributes (state, votes, etc) which are scalar properties. When the post gets edited we have various versions of the text (which are kept and visible to people with sufficient rep). Those are your POST DETAILS.
"what is the logic to separate it in another table?"
Because keeping different things in separate tables is what relational databases do. The standard way of representing this data model is a parent table POST and child table POST_DETAIL with a defined relationship enforced through a foreign key.
Embeddable is a concept from object-oriented programming. Oracle does support object-relational constructs in the database. So it would be possible to define a POST_DETAIL Type and create a POST Table which has a column declared as a nested table of that Type. However, that would be a bad design for two reasons:
The SQL for working with nested tables is clunky. For instance, to get the POST and the latest version of its text would require unnesting the collection of details every time we need to display it. Computationally not much different from joining to a child table and filtering on latest version flag, but harder to optimise.
Children can have children themselves. In the case of Posts, Tags are details because they can vary due to editing. But if you embed TAG in POST_DETAIL embedded in POST how easy would it be to find all the Posts with an [oracle] tag?
This is the difference between Object-Oriented design and relational design.
OO is strongly hierarchical: everything is belongs to something and the way to get the detail is through the parent. This approach works well when dealing with single instances of things, and so is appropriate for UI design.
Relational prioritises commonality: everything of the same type is grouped together with links to other things. This approach is suited for dealing with sets of things, and so is appropriate for data management tasks (do you want to find all the employees who work in BERLIN or whose job is ENGINEER or who are managed by ELLIOTT?)
"give me a more clear explanation when to use which one"
Always store the data relationally in separate tables. Build APIs using OO patterns when it makes sense to do so.
I'm interested in the new firebase.util package that allows you to join data (paths) and how I might be able to continue modeling with UML as I have become accustomed to over many years. I can see how easy it might be to make one-to-many relationships in this way. And because firebase is hierachical, component relationships are just very natural.
Aggregate relationships can be duck'd as we're all accustomed to this in javascript - enforcing aggregate relationship doesn't seem to me to be a barrier to modeling successful projects using firebase...
My question is if anyone has experimented | had success with | can show examples of how it might be possible to represent many-to-many relationships, perhaps by joining the join paths themselves.
If I don't get much interest in the question I may post my own trial-error results...
Thanks
I have tried to use composite key. For example, user can be member of many rooms. We need two queries: List of room members, and list of user's rooms. So we can have only one collection rooms-users, where key is built like this:
id = [roomId, userId].join()
The truth is, I'm not sure whether it is a good pattern. It seems it can prevent security rules settings https://stackoverflow.com/a/17431390/233902 and maybe even have performance implications.
So maybe two or even more collections are required. Two for many to many, third for relation metadata. As I'm thinking about, collections should be optimized for queries, so composite key is anti-pattern for Firebase.
I am interested in knowing the pros and cons of creating a custom system supported by a database like the one described below:
It has 6 tables that support it.
Entity: Lets say, anything "physical" that can exist and have detail stored against it
(Hilton Hotel, Tony Taxi, One Bar)
Entity Type: A grouping/type of entity
(Bar, Hotel, Restaurant)
Metadata: Any detail describing or belonging to an entity item
(IR232PH, foo#bar.com, 555-555-555)
Metadata Type: A grouping/type of metadata
(Post Code, Telephone, Email, address)
Entity Relationship: The ability to group any entity item to another
(Entity1-Entity2, Entity3)
Entity Relationship Type: The grouping/type of entity relationship.
I can see how this model is good for Entities that are similar but don't always have the same amount of attributes.
What are the pro/cons of using it as it is for entities as described?
An artist can be performing (relationship type) at a venue.
An artist can be supporting (relationship type) another artist
What would be the pro/cons of using it also to store more standard entities like users of the system?
A user can have a favourite (relationship type) venue/artist/bar etc
A user can have a attending (relationship type) event
Would you take it as far as having the news and blog posts in it?
This is highly subjective, but before I went up the abstraction ladder to where you are suggesting, I'd rather code my application to use DDL to modify the database schema to match the concrete aspects of the actual entities it was using, rather than having a static schema abstracted so far as to be able to store data about any potential entities.
In a way, to be a bit facetious, IMHO, what you are suggesting has already been done.... It is called a Relational Database. Every RDBMS is a software tool designed to be able to model any possible set of entities, and their attributes, in a way that accurately models those entities and the relationships between them.
Although you can certainly store the data in such a data model, there are a couple of problems (at least) with it.
The first problem is controlling the data. When an 'hotel' is described, what is the set of attributes and metadata that must be defined? Which metadata types can legitimately be entered for an hotel? Related to that is 'when I delete an hotel from the list, what else do I have to delete'? When I delete all hotels from the list (and I never want to store information about hotels again), what else do I have to delete? It is terrifically (terrifyingly?) easy to get all sorts of stray extraneous, unreferenced data into the database.
The second problem is retrieving the data. Suppose I want to know all the information about a specific hotel? How do I write a query for that? Actually, even inserting the data is hard, but selecting it is, if anything, harder. If I only want three attributes, it is easy - if the hotel actually has them all. It is harder if the hotel only has two of the three specified. But suppose the hotel has 30 atttributes, which is not a lot. Then it is terrifically difficult.
What you are describing is a souped-up version of a model known as the EAV or Entity-Attribute-Value model of data. It is generally accepted to be a 'bad idea', for all it is a common idea.
What you described is also known as a triplestore. A triple is a subject-object-predicate (Hotel HAS Rooms, Joe Likes HotelX, etc.). There are mechanisms for running these things (triplestore implementations), controlling the data (eg with ontologies) and for querying them, too (eg the SPARQL language). However, this is all fairly bleeding edge stuff and is known to have scalability problems. Nevertheless, combined with NoSQL approaches (index all your hotels in a big document store, etc.), it's an interesting area to keep an eye on.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triplestore.
Update Edited to reflect clarifications requested by Chris Holmes below. Originally I was referring to a Terminal as a Site but changed it to better reflect my actual domain.
At heart, I think this is a question about modeling a many to many relationship between two root entities where the relationship itself carries some semantic meaning.
In my domain
You can think of a Terminal as a branch location of our company
A Terminal can have a relationship with any number of customers
A customer can have a relationship with any number of terminals (standard many to many)
A customer\terminal relationship means that a customer can potentially store products at the Terminal
This relationship can be enabled\disabled. To be disabled merely means you are temporarily not allowed to store product, so a disabled relationship is different from no relationship at all.
A customer can have many Offices
A Terminal that has a relationship with a customer (enabled or not) must have a default office for that customer that they communicate with
There are some default settings that are applied to all transactions between a Customer and a Terminal, these are set up on a Terminal-Customer Relationship level
I think my objects here are pretty clear, Terminal, Customer, Office, and TerminalCustomerRelationship (since there is information being stored specifically about the relationship such as whether it is enabled, default office, ad default settings). Through multiple refactorings I have determined that both Terminal and Customer should probably be aggregate roots. This leaves me with the question of how to design my TerminalCustomerRelationship object to relate the two.
I suppose I could make the traversal from Terminal to TerminalCustomerRelationship unidirectional toward the relationship but I don't know how to break the relation from the relationship to the customer, especially since it needs to contain a reference to an Office which has a relationship to a Customer.
I'm new to this stuff and while most of DDD makes perfect sense I'm getting confused and need a fresh outlook. Can someone give me their opinion on how to deal with this situation?
Please note that I say Relationship not relation. In my current view it deserves to be an object in the same way that a Marriage would be an object in an application for a wedding chapel. Its most visible purpose is that it relates two objects, but it has other properties that rightfully belong to it as well.
By your description, you definitely need a "TerminalCustomerRelationship" entity to track the associated information. I would also convert the 'IsEnabled' flag into a first class 'Event' entity with a timestamp - this gives you the ability to save a history of the state changes (a more realistic view of what's happening in the domain.)
Here's a sample application (in VS2008) that refects your problem. You can tweak/test the code until the relationships make sense. Run "bin/debug/TerminalSampleApp.exe" and right-click "Terminal->Create Example" to get started.
Let me know if you find it useful.
Names can often clarify an object's responsibilities and bring a domain model into focus.
I am unclear what a Site is and that makes the entire model confusing, which makes it difficult for me to offer better advice. If a Site were a Vendor, for instance, then it would be easy to rename SiteCustomerRelationship as a Contract. In that context it makes perfect sense for Contract to be its own entity, and have the the model look like Vendor-Contract-Customer-Office.
There are other ways to look at this as well. Udi has a decent post on this sort of many-to-many relationship here.
You should not have a object Like SiteCustomerRelationship, its DB specific.
If its truly DDD you should have a Relation like:
Aggregate<Site> Customer.Site
IEnumerable<Aggregate<Office>> Customer.Offices
and perhaps
Aggregate<Office> Customer.DefaultOffice