Naming entities in an ER model: Which guidelines should an entity name satisfy to be clear and maintainable across a project?

Introduction / Context:
Clear naming conventions improve communication between stakeholders and reduce ambiguity in design artifacts. Entity names appear in diagrams, DDL, and documentation, so they should be consistent and expressive without being verbose.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Model follows standard ER naming practices.
• The audience includes analysts, developers, and business users.
• Names will likely map to table names in the physical schema.

Concept / Approach:
Using a singular noun (for example, Customer rather than Customers) reflects a single instance of an entity. Aligning with organizational vocabulary ensures domain fit. Concision avoids cumbersome identifiers while preserving clarity. Together, these qualities make names easier to read and maintain.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Common modeling standards and style guides (for example, data governance policies) recommend precisely these traits for entity names.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Any single trait alone omits the others that are also necessary.
• Long sentences harm readability and increase the chance of inconsistencies.

Common Pitfalls:
Mixing plural and singular inconsistently or using internally inconsistent business terms that confuse end users.

Final Answer:
All of the above.