Re: Re: Addressing ISSUE-64 and ISSUE-65

* David McNeil <> [2011-08-10 12:28-0500]
> > can you give me a real use-case where there is a need of multiple foreign
> > keys from the same columns.
> >
> Juan - This raises the question in my mind: is it a requirement for the
> Direct Mapping to capture all of the FK relationships? My assumption was
> that we wanted the Direct Mapping to capture all of them and would be
> considered a failure if it dropped some of them (would there be a
> deterministic way to identify which one to drop?). But from your question it
> seems that it is OK for a FK to be dropped and it is just a question of how
> common the scenario is. In that case I would say it is not very common.

I don't see where the current definition drops any data. The current
spec simply says that all foreign keys from the same columns will have
the same name. This seems consistent with how people would use
multiple foreign key constrains on the same column list (I haven't
seen it in real life).

> Regarding ISSUE-65, it seems useful to me that the presence of a FK is
> purely additive in terms of the triples produced. So I agree with Souri's
> points and recommendation.
> -David


Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 19:09:10 UTC