atlas-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mandy Chessell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (ATLAS-1768) Create common types for Open Metadata
Date Thu, 25 May 2017 18:38:04 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1768?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16025180#comment-16025180
] 

Mandy Chessell edited comment on ATLAS-1768 at 5/25/17 6:37 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------

These are the comments added by [~davidrad] in Jira ATLAS-1410.

210 I wonder if language should be a code table value - or more generally an valid value from
reference data
    ===>  It is a descriptive field that we are not going to process - it is for human
consumption so no value in creating a code table that will need to be synchronized between
all of the metadata repositories. We can add language identifier - such as "En" is we need
to process this in the future.
    
210 I am wondering about usage. Should this also be a code table - it seems more structural
than the description
    ==> the usage is a description and examples of how the term is used - it is a string.
  Look at dictionary definitions 

220 I suggest the supercategory to the subcategory be a composition (filled in diamond) relationship.
    ==>  This would not be correct because the subcategory is not deleted when the supercategory
is deleted.  It remains linked to the Glossary object.  I have added an aggregation (open
diamond) to show that the category is collecting subcategories.

230 I think the GlossaryCategory role name should be categories rather than category
   ==> done

240 I wonder about the "to" and "from" ends of the related term as they imply a direction
- for a SYNONYM and TRANSLATION there is no direction. It is almost like synonyms and transactions
should be in a synonym group or translation group respectively. Maybe we introduce an equivalence
group concept, where everything in the group is related to everything else in the group. This
would help for tag propagation for these terms.
  ==>  I think this over-complicates the model and would make it difficult to map to IGC.
 Typically the synonyms are in different glossaries, connecting the canonical model.   I would
be nervous about doing tag propagation along glossary relationships that are not from the
spine model.

I don't think we have a way in the current Atlas model to constrain the number of classifications
to 0..1.
 ==>  Classifications have a cardinality - are you saying it does not work?  Or something
else?




was (Author: mandy_chessell):
These are the comments added by [~davidrad] in Jira ATLAS-1410.

210 I wonder if language should be a code table value - or more generally an valid value from
reference data
    ===>  It is a descriptive field that we are not going to process - it is for human
consumption so no value in creating a code table that will need to be synchronized between
all of the metadata repositories. We can add language identifier - such as "En" is we need
to process this in the future.
    
210 I am wondering about usage. Should this also be a code table - it seems more structural
than the description
    ==> the usage is a description and examples of how the term is used - it is a string.
  Look 

220 I suggest the supercategory to the subcategory be a composition (filled in diamond) relationship.
    ==>  This would not be correct because the subcategory is not deleted when the supercategory
is deleted.  It remains linked to the Glossary object.  I have added an aggregation (open
diamond) to show that the category is collecting subcategories.

230 I think the GlossaryCategory role name should be categories rather than category
   ==> done

240 I wonder about the "to" and "from" ends of the related term as they imply a direction
- for a SYNONYM and TRANSLATION there is no direction. It is almost like synonyms and transactions
should be in a synonym group or translation group respectively. Maybe we introduce an equivalence
group concept, where everything in the group is related to everything else in the group. This
would help for tag propagation for these terms.
  ==>  I think this over-complicates the model and would make it difficult to map to IGC.
 Typically the synonyms are in different glossaries, connecting the canonical model.   I would
be nervous about doing tag propagation along glossary relationships that are not from the
spine model.

I don't think we have a way in the current Atlas model to constrain the number of classifications
to 0..1.
 ==>  Classifications have a cardinality - are you saying it does not work?  Or something
else?



> Create common types for Open Metadata
> -------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ATLAS-1768
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1768
>             Project: Atlas
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components:  atlas-core
>    Affects Versions: 0.9-incubating
>            Reporter: Mandy Chessell
>            Assignee: Mandy Chessell
>              Labels: VirtualDataConnector
>
> This JIRA describes a proposal for standard types for open metadata entities and relationships.
 For example, glossaries, database definitions, rules, policies, ...
> The value of having standard definitions for metadata is to enable type safe APIs and
business level UIs plus be able to exchange metadata between different instances of metadata
repositories.
> The implementation of these common types is divided into 8 areas:
> * Area 0 - for extensions to Apache Atlas's base model
> * Area 1 - for definitions of the data-related assets we are governing and using
> * Area 2 - for a glossary of meanings and semantic relationships
> * Area 3 - for information about asset use, crowd-sourced definitions and collaboration
around the data-related assets
> * Area 4 - for governance such as policies, rules and classifications
> * Area 5 - for reference models and reference data
> * Area 6 - for metadata discovery processes (see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1748)
> * Area 7 - for lineage
> Adaptation and flexibility are key in metadata environments so these common definitions
must be extensible - and we still need to support the ad hoc definition of new types in Atlas.
> Apache Atlas supports meta-types that are used in the definition of new types.  These
are currently enumeration, struct, classification and entity.  JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1690
adds relationships to this list.  The open metadata models make use of all of these meta-types.
 These are represented by sterotypes on the classes of the open metadata definitions.
> The Atlas wiki has the models as a set of linked pages which are probably the easiest
way to view the models.
> Start here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ATLAS/Building+out+the+Apache+Atlas+Typesystem



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

Mime
View raw message