share geometry shape between 2 feature class and have different attributes?

[HiteshJilka]

Hello, Arcgis 10.3, Oracle RDBMS: 12.1.0.2...
is there a way for two feature class (say parent and child) to share same geometry shape but have their own set of attributes?
New features created or updated on parent feature class share its geometry shape to child feature class but not any of its attributes.

[PanagiotisPapadopoulos]

maybe you can maintain the shape on the parent feature class and have the child as simple table.

then share the geometry between parent and child creating a spatial view on the database.

[HiteshJilka]

but I think there is restriction in editing from spatial view in ArcMAP, Users work in ArcMAP and they won't be able to edit attributes on child table which are different from parent attributes and need spatial location for reference to update their data. is there any other possible way to achieve this. Thanks

[PanagiotisPapadopoulos]

the only way i can think is to use relationship between feature class and child table. spatial view can apply only for viewing.

[VinceAngelo]

Cross-posted in GIS StackExchange.  You've left out quite a lot of information that was added in GIS SE comments which are critical to understanding this question (those comments should have been made as edits to the question there, as well).

[HiteshJilka]

Yeah I posted same query to get suggestion from other sources. I am working on relationship class between feature class and table. Created one to one composite relationship but now faced a new challenge. After adding a row to related table, I am still able to add extra rows to related table for the same feature. Attached snippet for Enabled option "Add New" even after existing of one row in one to one relationship. Any suggestion on how to prevent users from adding extra row?

 

[VinceAngelo]

Posting the same question, without demonstrating that you learned more about what is necessary to make that question answerable, might actually reduce the pool of folks willing to help (which may not have been as large as you imagine).

Part of the issue is that you seem to be pursuing a solution without articulating the problem it is supposed to solve (the formal name for this the "XY Problem" -- it is described here and here).  I suggest you provide more information on what you are trying to accomplish and why, then cross-check to make sure relationship classes are the right solution.

- V