Electric Utility Network Foundation related tables not part the feature dataset

[AnthonyRyanEQL]

Hi all,

I'm looking at the new Electric Utility Network Foundation Naperville demo data and have noticed

• Some relationship classes under the feature dataset and some are not
• The tables become versioned when the dataset is versioned. Assume this is done due to the relationship class
•  There are 2 relationship classes doing the same thing

Without knowing what tools are available to manage the data in these related tables as I can't find any documentation on these, is there standard/preferred way of how this should be structured as the current layout of the feature classes/tables looks misleading?

My original thought would be to have all feature classes, relationship classes and tables that participate in the UNF would be placed all under the feature dataset.

Also,

Based on what is currently there, can anybody expand the capability with user defined tables & relationship classes?

Thanks

[MikeMillerGIS · Accepted solution]

I will log an issue to move the Relationship classes into the Feature Dataset.  Looks like just an oversight.

We would prefer to move the tables into the feature dataset also, but the GDB does not support that at the moment.  

We do not have a workflow that describes the editing process, but these diagrams describe their use:

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c957d7a091be4b1e942b5c82883f6f66

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/903a7b52bd644b05897395e2ccc00400

[AnthonyRyanEQL]

Michael,

Thankyou for clarifying this. I assumed at the moment workflow to add data to these related tables is just the standard workflow to add data to any related table that might exist with an geodatabase.

If we wanted a more integrated solution then the utility/partner will implement their own tool to satisfy their own requirements.

Thanks again

[MikeMillerGIS]

That is correct