Is it the "name" of the "response" or of the "proposed concept"? Does the
"response" itself need synonyms, etc.?

Does "proposed_concept_name_response" capture the intent or is that still
not right? That doesn't seem right to me, either, because the response
isn't to the name, presumably. I can't make all three of these things fit
into a single idea:

   1. a "proposed concept";
   2. a "name";
   3. a "response"

1. & 2. make sense together, and so do 1. & 3.

Feel free to tell me to let this go - I just know that others have stumbled
on our language, and I'm always inclined to take a moment to shore up the
shared language, where possible.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, David Sanders <notifications@github.com>wrote:

> In api/src/main/resources/liquibase.xml:
>
> > @@ -271,4 +271,27 @@
> >          </addColumn>
> >      </changeSet>
> >
> > +    <!-- Adding id column to proposed concept response name -->
> > +    <changeSet author="cpm" id="cpm_2013-08-12-1">
> > +        <dropTable tableName="cpm_proposed_concept_response_name"/>
>
> Oh yeah deleting is bad. Name has its own table to handle synonyms,
> language tuples; it's basically mirroring the dictionary structure almost
> verbatim.
> … <#140765fbe5e3c78c_>
> On 13/08/2013, at 2:27 PM, Kent McNeill <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> In api/src/main/resources/liquibase.xml: > @@ -271,4 +271,27 @@ >
> </addColumn> > </changeSet> > > + <!-- Adding id column to proposed concept
> response name --> > + <changeSet author="cpm" id="cpm_2013-08-12-1"> > +
> <dropTable tableName="cpm_proposed_concept_response_name"/> I'm not
> entirely familiar with Liquibase, but this certainly looks like it will
> delete the existing table and recreate it, meaning that any existing data
> (both on people's local machines and in various environments, such as QA)
> would be lost. Is that the only option here (vs. adding -> migrating the
> column)? Also, I'm surprised that the "name" of the "proposed concept
> response" has its own table - surely the name seems more like an attribute
> than an entity, doesn't it? That being said, I'm not familiar with how
> we've modeled the domain, so I'm certainly not saying it's wrong - just
> surprising. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/OpenMRS-Australia/openmrs-cpm/pull/35/files#r5729123>
> .
>