For structured data, can alternateName be used more than once on a single thing?
Yes, every property can be used multiple times.
You could even provide multiple name properties, but it might make sense to use one name property (for the canonical/official name) and one or more alternateName properties for all other names.
Examples: Person with several name, Product with several color, Offer with several priceSpecification, item with several additionalType.
Related
Each product has two xp parameters - productLine, productType.
Under productLine, there are multiple product types.
I need to fetch list of distinct productType under each productLine.
There is limit on listing all products due to pagination.
Is it possible with ordercloud?
The short answer is there's no shortcut way to do this. Typically in these scenarios it works the other way - you have a pre-defined list of possible values and restrict what goes in via a dropdown list in the UI, or an enum in the integration layer, or something along those lines. For your scenario, you would need to resort to fetching all products (page by page) and keeping track of those unique values. Ideally that one be a one-time thing and going forward I'd suggest validating/restricting the input, although I don't know your exact requirements.
I have run into a little roadblock in regards to joining mantle entities. I would like to have a single depicting fields from two mantle entities, but am unsuccessful in joining them. Specifically, I have linked a list of party relationships (as contacts) to a single partyId (vendor), with the goal to make a vendor contacts page. However I am unable to link that form-list with the PartyContactMech and ContactMech entities (in order to display email and phone number in the same form-list). More generally, my question is how can one map lists to each other the same way one can map a list to a single object (using entity-find-one and value-field does not work when tried with entity-find)?
There is no need to make a view-entity (join entities) to do that. Simply do a query on the PartyRelationship entity in the main 'actions' part of your screen specifying the toParty (vendor). Then in your Form-List, use 'row-actions' to query the PartyContactMech and so on for each fromPartyId (contact) entry that the previous query returned. Also have a look at the PartyViewEntities file in Mantle USL. There are some helpful view-enties already defined for you there such as PartyToAndRelationship, PartyFromAndRelationship etc. Also note that entity-find-one returns a single "map" (value-field) as it queries on the PK. Whereas entity-find returns a list of maps (list). They are separate query types. If I understand your question correctly.
Good afternoon everyone!
I'm studying NHibernate, and decided to make some changes. Among them, I noticed that some fields are unnecessary. So I bring my doubt:
I have a list, let's call it Class_List within each study class, I can have N students for each class. Within the list Class_List, I also have other properties as simple as the name of the class.
How I see it is unnecessary to store how many students I have in the database, I would, in a single query, how many records I have. This, using NHibernate.
Is this possible? How?
Best regards,
Gustavo.
Edit: I've forgot to say one thing... I want to return this number of record, as a column. But this column is not mapped in my .hbm.xml file.
If students are mapped as a collection on Class, you can try using something like this:
var numberOfStudents = session.CreateCriteria<Class>()
.Add(Restrictions.IdEq(1))
.CreateCriteria("_students", "students")
.SetProjection(Projections.RowCount())
.UniqueResult<Int32>();
Where '1' is the id of the class (you can use other property) and '_students' is the name of the students collection.
I have a problem naming the elements in my application's data model.
In the application, the user has the possibility to create his own metamodel. He does so by creating entity types and a type defines which properties an entity has. However, there are three kinds of entity types:
There is always exactly one instance of the type.
For instance, I want to model the company I am working for. It has a name, a share price and a number of employees. These values change over time, but there is always exactly one company.
There are different instances of the type, each is unique.
Example: Cities. A city has a name and a population count, there are different cities and each city exists exactly once.
Each instance of the type defines multiple entities.
Example: Cars. A car has a color and a manufacturer. But there is not only one red mercedes. And even though they are similar, red mercedes #1 is different from red mercedes #2.
So lets say you are a user of this tool and you understood the concept of these three flavors. You want to create a new entity type and are prompted to choose between option 1, 2 and 3. How would you name these options?
Edit:
Documentation and help is available to the user. Also the user can be expecteted to have a technical/programming background, so understanding these three concepts should be no problem.
First of all let me make sure I understand the problem,
Here's what you have (correct me if I'm wrong):
#of instances , is/are Unique
(1,true)
(n,true)
(n,false)
If so,
for #of instances I would use single \ plural
for is\are unique (\ not unique) I would use unique \ ununique.
so you'll get:
singleUnique
pluralUnique
pluralUnunique
That's the best I could think of.. I don't know exactly who are your users and what is the environment, But if you have an option of adding tips (or documentation) that should be used for sure.
I'm trying to implement a feature similar to StackOverflow's tag feature. That a user can create a new tag, or by typing pull up a list of similar tags already created.
This is such a wonderful feature on this site and I find it sad that most sites do not have something like this. It's both robust, and yet very very flexible and best of all: driven by the community.
So I have these two tables:
Company
id
email
name
companySize
countryOfOrigin
industryid
Industry
id
description
Every time a user writes a new tag, I want to create one with a unique ID, and also be able to search for existing tags.
Will this database design allow for an easy and efficient implementation of this feature?
If not, please give a little guidance. :)
Whilst there's not a tremendous amount of information to go on, what you've listed should be fine. (The 'tag' being the 'description' field in the industry table, etc.)
As you might imagine, all of the real work is done outside of SQL, where you'll need to...
(Potentially) add new tag(s) that don't yet exist.
Associate the industry with the supplied tag(s).
(Potentially) prune previously used tags that may no longer be in use.
...every time you edit an industry.
That said, the key limitation of your proposed setup is that each company can only belong to a single industry. (i.e.: It can only have a single industry tag associated with it.)
As such, you might want to consider a schema along the lines of...
Company
id
...
countryOfOrigin
Industries
id
description
CompanyIndustriesLookup
companyID
industryID
...which would let you associate multiple industries/tags with a given company.
Update...
For example, under this setup, to get all of the tags associated with company ID 1, you'd use...
SELECT Industries.description FROM (CompanyIndustriesLookup, Industries)
WHERE companyID=1 AND industryID=Industries.ID
ORDER BY Industries.description ASC;
On a similar basis, to get all companies tagged with an industry of "testing", you'd use...
SELECT Company.name FROM (Company, Industries, CompanyIndustriesLookup)
WHERE Company.id=CompanyIndustriesLookup.companyID
AND Industries.id=CompanyIndustriesLookup.industryID
AND Industries.description="testing"
ORDER BY Company.name ASC
A very easy (if somewhat suboptimal, but it often does not matter) solution to use tags is to not have tag ids at all. So, you have:
Items
ItemId
Name
Description
...
ItemTag
ItemId
Tag
Adding a tag to an item is just adding the tuple to the ItemTag table, whether the tag already exists or not. And you don't have to do any bookkeeping on removing tags either. Just keep an index on ItemTag.Tag, to be able to quickly display all unique tags.