Mailing-List: contact dev-help@atlas.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@atlas.apache.org
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:36:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Nigel Jones (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.13075387.1495916955000.291878.1500554160093@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.13075387.1495916955000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.13075387.1495916955000@Atlassian.JIRA> <JIRA.13075387.1495916955722@jira-lw-us.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (ATLAS-1839) Area 2 of the open metadata model
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:36:04 -0000


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1839?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16094613#comment-16094613 ] 

Nigel Jones commented on ATLAS-1839:
------------------------------------

[~davidrad] the toxic combination support in ranger policies is primarily geared to controlling what a user may access, whilst the validation [~ivarea] is suggesting is primarily about creates and updates, ie defining the data model itself. That's not to say ranger couldn't do this (since it can address any operation such as a create) but I don't think that's ranger's intent. But I agree it's a fine line and could well vary significantly in different environments

As such I think it makes sense to define validation in atlas and be able to link to code artifacts, services that implement those validations probably through a combination of discovery & stewardship , plus making it easier when writing pipelines for say ETL or streaming, to be able to easily pull in atlas metadata and capture a link between a validation implemented by an pipeline author (or being used from a library) and it's definition in atlas. Thus atlas ends up with both the "intent" (the business spec if you like) as well as links to the implementation yet does not constrain those implementations since they can be so varied. 

Following on from this, absolutely some of those validations could be implemented as complex rules, but I think it would be tricky and constraining to capture all that in atlas, hence why I'd go for the link approach & some relatively loose coupling

So with that done, sure we could have a more complex rules engine embedded in, or used by ranger plugins... but this could be one of a number of different approaches

I'd be inclined to start off with us figuring out how to model, and some use cases where we can explore the authoring (ie in atlas), assisted authoring (when writing a job), metadata capture (from those other systems, also relates to lineage) & probably best to do that in ATLAS-1995? This also touches on RANGER-1869 (metadata capture)

Certainly this is an interesting area !

> Area 2 of the open metadata model
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ATLAS-1839
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1839
>             Project: Atlas
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components:  atlas-core
>    Affects Versions: 0.9-incubating
>            Reporter: Mandy Chessell
>            Assignee: David Radley
>              Labels: OpenMetadata, VirtualDataConnector
>         Attachments: 0005LinkedMediaTypes.json, 0210Glossary.json, 0220CategoryHierarchy.json, 0230Terms.json, 0240Dictionary.json, 0250RelatedTerms.json, 0260Contexts.json, 0270SemanticAssignment.json, 0280SpineObjects.json
>
>
> This task delivers the JSON files for the new models that describe types for Area 2 in the open metadata model. This area covers the glossary.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)