Skip to content

does ai_context really nessary? Strengthen description and name to reduce reliance on ai_context #234

Description

@stormrise

A good semantic should describe by itself.

I'd like to discuss whether ai_context could eventually become optional by making our core metadata more self-descriptive.

Current situation

ai_context is a pragmatic field today – it provides synonyms, custom instructions, and extra hints for AI tools. I understand its value, but I believe a well-designed semantic model should carry enough meaning in name and description alone.

Suggestions for stronger naming & descriptions

Naming conventions:

  • Use business terms (e.g., Revenue not TotalSalesAmount).

  • Avoid abbreviations except common ones (e.g., ID).

  • Be consistent: use date suffixes, is prefixes for booleans.

  • Name the business concept, not its implementation.

  • Use singular for models, plural for datasets.

Descriptions should cover:

  • Grain (what each row represents)

  • Source

  • Business definition / formula

  • Differences from similar fields

  • Edge cases or filters

  • Synonyms/aliases (which alone can replace many uses of ai_context)

Conclusion

If we invest in precise, structured descriptions and clear naming, we can significantly reduce the need for ai_context. I'd suggest we treat this as a long‑term goal – perhaps documenting best practices and eventually deprecating ai_context when the metadata is rich enough.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Fields

    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions