This doesn't allow for finer semantics. Just "u.id" tells us what the thing is, but not its role in the schema. I don't think it's very unusual to do this. The

This doesn't allow for finer semantics. Just "u.id" tells us what the thing is, but not its role in the schema. I don't think it's very unusual to do this. The most obvious example is where there are multiple references to the same entity. For example, an Order table might contain two references to a user - one for the user who placed the order, and another for the person who approved the order. But it's more general than this. Just saying that it's the user that's associated with the thing is frequently not enough to convey understanding, and naming with the role that the relationship is describing is helpful.