Add more conceptual documentation around aggregates

[BahKoo]

The documentation makes the following claim about references from owned types:

In addition to nested owned types, an owned type can reference a regular entity, it can be either the owner or a different entity as long as the owned entity is on the dependent side.

It is not made clear why the owned entity must be on the dependent side of the relationship. Is this limitation by-design or a current shortcoming?

A concrete example of a scenario that would benefit from this capability was outlined in the stackoverflow question:
https://stackoverflow.com/q/54647000/2196664

When talking about DDD, having value objects reference a collection of entities does not seem to be a restriction:

VALUE OBJECTS can even reference ENTITIES. For example, if I ask an online map service for a
scenic driving route from San Francisco to Los Angeles, it might derive a Route object linking L.A.
and San Francisco via the Pacific Coast Highway. That Route object would be a VALUE, even though
the three objects it references (two cities and a highway) are all ENTITIES.
-- Eric Evans, Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software, page 98

---

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

• ID: d02e6748-42e0-000a-4945-42cd05a0b875
• Version Independent ID: e3effbd0-07f2-423d-4032-1722e75adb37
• Content: Owned Entity Types - EF Core
• Content Source: entity-framework/core/modeling/owned-entities.md
• Product: entity-framework
• Technology: entity-framework-core
• GitHub Login: @AndriySvyryd
• Microsoft Alias: ansvyryd

[AndriySvyryd]

This is by design. Owned types are part of an aggregate and only the aggregate root can be referenced from outside.

VALUE OBJECTS can even reference ENTITIES. For example, if I ask an online map service for a
scenic driving route from San Francisco to Los Angeles, it might derive a Route object linking L.A.
and San Francisco via the Pacific Coast Highway. That Route object would be a VALUE, even though
the three objects it references (two cities and a highway) are all ENTITIES.
-- Eric Evans, Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software, page 98

This doesn't say that Route is the principal, it has three references to three entities.

[BahKoo]

On closer inspection of my model, I think that table splitting is a better fit for my problem than owned entities. Thanks for the feedback.