atlas-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Radley <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com>
Subject Fw: Rename trait to classification
Date Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:16:39 GMT
Hi,
 I referred to Business term and Business category - business is a bit 
generic and not well defined. It would be more accurate to say Glossary 
term and Glossary category,
        all the best, David. 


----- Forwarded by David Radley/UK/IBM on 26/09/2016 11:13 -----

From:   David Radley/UK/IBM
To:     Hemanth Yamijala <hyamijala@hortonworks.com>, Mandy 
Chessell/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
Date:   26/09/2016 10:29
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification


Hi Hermanth and Mandy ,
Thanks for your feedback.

It does seem like these are de-facto industry terms in the governance 
industry; the reason I say this is that looking around the web I see quite 
a few uses of the words governance classification in different domains 
(including in the Atlas documentation!).

I was not aware of the idea that traits and terms would be authored by 
different roles - thanks for your explanation. What is coming up for me is 
:

I think business users should be able to add new business terms (maybe 
going through a workflow and a governance curator then sorting out 
inconsistencies), as they are the most expert as the language they use. 
Classifications could be authored by different teams, for example levels 
of confidentiality (in Mandy's example) would be dictated by the 
governance team. Governance rules would run on these classifications.

You say "So, it is hard to use traits in a shared sense or expect to have 
conventional usage" . I notice the Atlas tutorial did not give me this 
impression, as the example of a trait/tag is PII. 
Your description of traits implies they are more like free form labels . 
If this is the intent for traits, then it does not make sense to rename 
them to classification. Maybe traits should be called labels; so their 
name is more in line with their expected usage. Though we should change 
the tutorial!

A business term is a type of classification -a semantic classification. We 
could add in the concept of classification which Business term and 
Business category  (Jira 1186 ) inherit from. This would allow us to add 
in confidential classifications and classifications schemes to organize.

I look forwards to your thoughts, 
      all the best, David. 




From:   Hemanth Yamijala <hyamijala@hortonworks.com>
To:     David Radley <dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
Date:   26/09/2016 05:33
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification



Hi,

Are these de-facto industry terms in the governance industry? If yes, 
would they make more sense to explore as part of the Business Taxonomy 
feature that's currently in alpha in 0.7, rather than the trait system? 

One differentiation we've been trying to express is that traits (also 
referred to as tags in some places in Atlas) are free form and left to the 
user using them. So, it is hard to use traits in a shared sense or expect 
to have conventional usage. So, traits would probably be a tool for a data 
scientist to quickly annotate something for their own discovery usage 
later.

Business taxonomy, on the other hand, is something we are thinking as used 
to express standard classification, even if only within an organization, 
but maybe even across industry domains etc. They would likely be created 
by data stewards with knowledge of the domain and their usage would follow 
established practices (authorization controlling who can do what).

Not sure if what we're referring to as "classification" here fits the 
"traits" or "business taxonomy" side more - trying to understand...

Thanks
hemanth
________________________________________
From: Mandy Chessell <mandy_chessell@uk.ibm.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:56 PM
To: David Radley
Cc: dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Rename trait to classification

Hello David,
I also like the idea of using the term classification.
Typically classifications in governance are ordered sets of values grouped
into a classification scheme.  Is the notion of the classification scheme
also part of the change you are thinking of?

For example, the classification scheme and "unclassified" value which is
the default classification for any data element that has no classification
from this scheme associated with it.  The other values are defined in
increasing levels of sensitivity.  There are also sub-classifications.  So
for example, confidential has sub-classifications of Business
Confidential, Partner Confidential and Personal Confidential.  If a rule
is defined for "confidential", it applies to all three of the
sub-classifications.

§Confidentiality Classification Scheme
§Confidentiality is used to classify the impact of disclosing information
to unauthorized individuals
•Unclassified
•Internal Use
•Confidential
•Business Confidential.
•Partner Confidential.
•Personal Information.
•Sensitive
•Sensitive Personal
•Sensitive Financial
•Sensitive Operational
•Restricted
•Restricted Financial
•Restricted Operational
•Trade Secret


The classification schemes create a graduated view of how sensitive data
is.  We would also expect to see classification schemes for other aspects
of governance such as retention, confidence (quality) and criticality.


All the best
Mandy
___________________________________________
Mandy Chessell CBE FREng CEng FBCS
IBM Distinguished Engineer
IBM Analytics Group CTO Office

Master Inventor
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Visiting Professor, Department of Computer Science, University of
Sheffield

Email: mandy_chessell@uk.ibm.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49

Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@uk.ibm.com



From:   David Radley/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
Date:   23/09/2016 17:05
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification



Hi Madhan,
That would be great :-)  thanks, David.



From:   Madhan Neethiraj <madhan@apache.org>
To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" <dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mneethiraj@hortonworks.com>



David,

I agree on replacing ‘trait’ with ‘Classification’. I guess the name
‘triat’ might have been influenced by Scala (and not from Ranger, which
doesn’t have ‘triat’ in its vocab..).

Instead of renaming in the existing APIs, how about we go with the new
name in the API introduced in ATLAS-1171?

Thanks,
Madhan



On 9/23/16, 1:35 AM, "David Radley" <david_radley@uk.ibm.com> wrote:

    Hi,
    I have raised Jira ATLAS-1187. This is to rename trait to
Classification.
    I know that this would effect the API, so am keen to understand how we


    agree to version the API maybe including other changes. I feel trait
is
    not very descriptive and I assume comes from Ranger terminology. I
think
    using classification instead brings us into using terminology better
    representing the Atlas capability and its role in governance use
cases. I
    am keen to get your feedback. I do not feel that I should just submit
a
    fix like this - I think we need more agreement to account for the
impact
    on current users. At the same time, we are still in incubation we
should
    be able to make changes like this to polish the API.

    I am looking forward to your thoughts,       David Radley
    Unless stated otherwise above:
    IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number
    741598.
    Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6

3AU






Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU







Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU


Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message