I'm working on my first Core Data project (on iPhone) and am really liking it. Core Data is cool stuff.

I am, however, running into a design difficulty that I'm not sure how to solve, although I imagine it's a fairly common situation. It concerns the data model.

For the sake of clarity, I'll use an imaginary football game app as an example to illustrate my question. Say that there are NSMO's called Downs and Plays. Plays function like templates to be used by Downs. The user creates Plays (for example, Bootleg, Button Hook, Slant Route, Sweep, etc.) and fills in the various properties. Plays have a to-many relationship with Downs. For each Down, the user decides which Play to use. When the Down is executed, it uses the Play as its template. After each down is run, it is stored in history. The program remembers all the Downs ever played.

So far, so good. This is all working fine.

The question I have concerns what happens when the user wants to change the details of a Play. Let's say it originally involved a pass to the left, but the user now wants it to be a pass to the right. Making that change, however, not only affects all the future executions of that Play, but also changes the details of the Plays stored in history. The record of Downs gets "polluted," in effect, because the Play template has been changed.

I have been rolling around several possible fixes to this situation, but I imagine the geniuses of SO know much more about how to handle this than I do. Still, the potential fixes I've come up with are:

1) "Versioning" of Plays. Each change to a Play template actually creates a new, separate Play object with the same name (as far as the user can tell). Underneath the hood, however, it is actually a different Play. This would work, AFAICT, but seems like it could potentially lead to a wild proliferation of Play objects, esp. if the user keeps switching back and forth between several versions of the same Play (creating object after object each time the user switches). Yes, the app could check for pre-existing, identical Plays, but... it just seems like a mess.

2) Have Downs, upon saving, record the details of the Play they used, but not as a Play object. This just seems ridiculous, given that the Play object is there to hold those just those details.

3) Recognize that Play objects are actually fulfilling 2 functions: one to be a template for a Down, and the other to record what template was used. These 2 functions have a different relationship with a Down. The first (template) has a to-many relationship. But the second (record) has a one-to-one relationship. This would mean creating a second object, something like "Play-Template" which would retain the to-many relationship with Downs. Play objects would get reconfigured to have a one-to-one relationship with Downs. A Down would use a Play-Template object for execution, but use the new kind of Play object to store what template was used. It is this change from a to-many relationship to a one-to-one relationship that represents the crux of the problem.

Even writing this question out has helped me get clearer. I think something like solution 3 is the answer. However if anyone has a better idea or even just a confirmation that I'm on the right track, that would be helpful. (Remember, I'm not really making a football game, it's just faster/easier to use a metaphor everyone understands.)

Thanks.