I guess what I mean to say is that it just seems like another set of naming standards where you use "key" instead of "id".
In a previous company I worked for, the naming scheme was much the same (e.g. "_xref" table suffixes, etc.) but the identifier columns were still called "id".
For me personally, it still makes sense to keep it as "id" rather than "key", because I think of the "id" being the value of the "key" (or one of the keys) in that table. In other words, "id" is the value, "key" refers to the SQL relationship.