Re: [Neo] Relationship Design Question

Personally I think that since the direction is built into the relationship, and the concept of a relationship is already a 'verb', I think both the 'IS' (or 'HAS') and the 'OF') are redundant. I vote for: father --(CHILD)--> son or alternatively father <--(PARENT)-- son Clean, simple, consiste

Re: [Neo] Relationship Design Question

The names IS_PARENT and IS_SON doesn't really explain which direction it is, right? A better naming would be IS_PARENT_OF or IS_SON_OF. Then you would immediately see which direction they have. But if you choose to go with the father or son naming is up to you, whatever feels more natural. 2009/11

Re: [Neo] Relationship Design Question

Hi and welcome Matt! > What is the best way to design this type of relationship? What direction is > best to use? > The one that makes the most sense to you in your code, I think! Or rather: how would you draw this on a whiteboard when explaining the application domain to someone?! In my cas

[Neo] Relationship Design Question

I'm starting my first graph database project and I have a few questions on the best way to setup the node relationships. Say you want to model a Father/Son relationship. What is the best relationship and direction to use for that? 1. Father --IS_PARENT--> Son or 2. SON --IS_CHILD--> Father or