Should relationship schemas be the source of truth when defining relationships?

[innocentrda]

I was looking for a standard way of defining relationships and I thought it should be this schema (v1alpha2). However, by comparing some relationship examples with this schema, there is some mismatch.

The above screenshots were taken from docs, edge_network relationship and schema v1alpha2.

For example:
There is no type: network in the schema yet it’s defined in the doc example.
There is subtype: Network in the edge_network example without type: . Not sure if this is just okay.

Briefly, should relationships follow the schema ?

[MUzairS15]

Yes, @innocentrda relationships should adhere to the schema. v1alpha2 version of the schema was defined keeping in mind further enhancement for relationships. While we are using this schema we are not utilising it to the fullest.

Part of this inconsistency also comes because we are just now moving towards schema driven development.

It’s perfect that you are noticing and reporting these inconsistencies.

You are welcome to suggest further enhancements to the schema/definitions.