ODMG object databases — evaluate the bidirectional relationship rule.\n\n"In the ODMG Object Model, a relationship must be specified in both directions (with an inverse declared)."

Introduction / Context:
The ODMG (Object Database Management Group) specification defined a standard object model and bindings for object databases. A key feature is how relationships between objects are modeled and kept consistent. This question asks whether relationships are defined in both directions with an inverse declaration to maintain referential consistency.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• ODMG modeled associations between objects as relationships, often declared with “relationship” and “inverse.”
• Consistency between ends of a relationship is critical (for example, keeping a parent’s list of children aligned with each child’s parent reference).
• Object identity (OID) allows direct references between objects.

Concept / Approach:
In ODMG, relationships are typically declared bidirectionally with an inverse to ensure that updates to one side are reflected on the other. This helps the database maintain referential integrity and provides navigability from either related object without additional joins or lookups.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Review ODMG examples: relationships include explicit inverse clauses guaranteeing bidirectional integrity across navigations.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Unidirectional only: contradicts the inverse construct.
• Only inheritance / only OIDs / only binding-specific: relationships and inverses are a core, model-level concept, not restricted to those cases.

Common Pitfalls:
Forgetting to declare inverses leads to dangling or asymmetric links; attempting to mimic bidirectionality in application code instead of the model; mixing relational foreign keys semantics with object references without defining inverse consistency.

Final Answer:
Valid (bidirectional with inverse is required)