Skip to content

[entities] Attribute field names inconsistency #4700

@dmitryax

Description

@dmitryax

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

ID vs Identity vs Identifying

  • Identity has not been used so far.
  • The proto defines the field as id_keys, while the documentation refers to them as Identifying.
  • Using both ID and Identifying might be acceptable, but this naming is not consistent with how we handle the Description terminology 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

  1. Use “Descriptive” and “Identifying/ID” everywhere
    → Rename the proto field from description_keys to descriptive_keys and update related docs.

  2. 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

No one assigned

    Labels

    entitiessig-issueA specific SIG should look into this before discussing at the specspec:resourceRelated to the specification/resource directory

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    Status

    No status

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions