tiny thought - I wonder if defining 'key' as a specific term in the first instance (either by quotation marks or a different word or some other signifier) could be useful? I keep reading it subconsciously as eg 'the three important columns' because of slightly ambiguous definition; I don't think that's an incorrect reading but feels like this is one of those 'it means something kinda specific' moments

[nick-gorman]

tiny thought - I wonder if defining 'key' as a specific term in the first instance (either by quotation marks or a different word or some other signifier) could be useful? I keep reading it subconsciously as eg 'the three important columns' because of slightly ambiguous definition; I don't think that's an incorrect reading but feels like this is one of those 'it means something kinda specific' moments

Originally posted by @EllieKallmier in #126 (comment)

[nick-gorman]

Hmmm, I think what's happening here is that we have two types of data in our table category/ID columns which are often used for joining/linking data between tables, kind of like primary or foriegn keys in a relational database, then we just have the values type columns capacity, costs etc. Maybe I've over simplified there, not sure. But anyway we've never adopted any terminolgy for talking about these different types of data, and so claude has just made some up, adopting key in more slang version of how its used relational databases. It made sense to me, but yeah, I see how it might not. I think a better word / defining it explicitly makes sense, but I'm not sure where that would best live.