Hi Michael,
thanks for that suggestion, it may well address my concerns. I didn't want
to loose the direct graph relationships since that's an integral part of my
data model and application. But, as you say, there's nothing to stop adding
supporting relationships that aren't navigated when I need
You don't have to loose the direct relationship neccessarily. You can just add
a second
relationship between the nodes. Just when you need to access the evidence
information
you need to take the longer route.
Michael
Jonny Wray schrieb:
> Emil,
>
> thanks for the reply. Yes, I think you've und
Emil,
thanks for the reply. Yes, I think you've understood the problem. My
'evidence' is complex enough that the direct, intuitive solution you mention
wasn't sitting well with me, basically due to the brittleness you mention.
The moment you starting having .1 and .2 added to strings to indicate
d
Isn't that the general approach when adding information to relationships?
It's common in ER to introduce mapping tables that not only contain the
foreign key references but also data as well.
In OO its the same.
Fortunately most of the time the newly introduced relationship type will
evolve quickly
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Jonny Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm in the process of moving an application over from an RDF based graph
> store to Neo. So far it's being great but I'm currently hitting a modelling
> question that I'm sure some experience with the technology would
Hi,
I'm in the process of moving an application over from an RDF based graph
store to Neo. So far it's being great but I'm currently hitting a modelling
question that I'm sure some experience with the technology would help, and
so I'm asking the group.
The situation is that I have two related ent
6 matches
Mail list logo
