One-to-Many relation definition: correct interpretation of the relationship direction
<p>I have a trouble about the interpretation of the "direction" of One-to-Many relation. Imagine the relation  <code>Person:City</code> between <code>Person</code> and <code>City</code> which describes the unique residence of each individual. A <em>person</em> can live only in one <em>city</em> and each <em>city</em> is inhabited by a lot of <em>persons</em>, hence possible tuples are <code>(p1,c1),(p2,c1),(p3,c1)</code>. I found two different definitions of this kind of rel:</p>

<ol>
<li>Person:City is a <strong>One-to-Many</strong> relation because same instances of City participate more times to different instance of relation (eg. reference <a href="http://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials/sql-for-beginners-part-3-database-relationships--net-8561" rel="nofollow">here</a>)</li>
<li>Person:City is a <strong>Many-to-One</strong> relation because one row in table <code>City</code> (eg. <code>c1</code>)  may be linked with many rows in table <code>Person</code>, but one row in table <code>Person</code> is linked to only one row in table <code>City</code> (eg. reference <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-to-many_(data_model)" rel="nofollow">here</a>)</li>
</ol>

<p>My doubt is about semantic: does <em>many</em> refer to <em>(i)</em> <code>City</code> for multiple participation of identical instances to the relation or refer to <em>(ii)</em> <code>Person</code> since different people are linked to same city?</p>

<p>Although that definition probably does not affect the structure of data, sometimes could lead to misunderstandings. 
Which is the correct one?</p>