-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 933
Description
What are you trying to achieve?
Establish consistent naming for entity attribute fields. This issue originates from this discussion.
What did you expect to see?
Consistent terminology across the proto definitions, semantic conventions, and documentation.
Additional context
There is an inconsistency in how entity attribute key fields are named:
Description vs Descriptive
- The proto definition uses
description_keys. - The semantic conventions refer to them as Descriptive Attributes.
ID vs Identity vs Identifying
Identityhas not been used so far.- The proto defines the field as
id_keys, while the documentation refers to them as Identifying. - Using both
IDandIdentifyingmight be acceptable, but this naming is not consistent with how we handle theDescriptionterminology since Description is a noun, the equivalent pattern would suggest using Identity (also a noun), rather than Identifying (an adjective/participle).
The Collector Go API currently aligns with the proto naming but could still be changed since it’s not yet in use.
Proposed options for consistency
-
Use “Descriptive” and “Identifying/ID” everywhere
→ Rename the proto field fromdescription_keystodescriptive_keysand update related docs. -
Use “Description” and “Identity/ID” everywhere
→ Keep the current proto naming but update all documentation accordingly.
Tip: React with 👍 to help prioritize this issue. Please use comments to add useful context (avoid +1 or me too) to help with triage. Learn more here.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
Type
Projects
Status