dengc367 commented on PR #14239:
URL: https://github.com/apache/gravitino/pull/14239#issuecomment-6461874882
Thanks for this design — it covers the term layer thoroughly, and I have
aligned my ontology design
with it rather than proposing a competing term object.
Context: I have a design doc for the Apache Ossie side, issue #14309 / PR
#14310. It covers an
`Ontology` entity (Ossie `ontology.json`: typed concepts, relationships with
cardinality and required
natural-language phrasings, IRIs) and an `OntologyMapping` (Ossie's
standalone `mapping.json`). My first
draft proposed a separate `Page` object for terms, which was a mistake given
this design — one word
would have had two definitions, two owners and two approval states.
I have reworked it in PR #14310 to:
- adopt `GlossaryTerm` as the term model, with no second term entity;
- adopt the `DRAFT` / `APPROVED` / `DEPRECATED` status, the `BROADER` /
`RELATED` hierarchy with cycle
rejection, the explicit `TermDomain` relation, bindings down to columns
and metrics, and the
`DEFINITION` privileges;
- add only `TermConceptRef`, a link from a term to the Ossie concepts it
elaborates.
Three places where the two designs meet, in case they are useful for your
open questions:
1. **Privileges.** I followed your `VIEW_DEFINITION` / `CREATE_DEFINITION` /
`MANAGE_DEFINITIONS`
rather than Domain's `MANAGE_DOMAIN` / `USE_DOMAIN`. Your open question 2
asks exactly this; one
answer should serve both.
2. **Status vocabulary.** Yours is `DRAFT` / `APPROVED` / `DEPRECATED`;
Domain's is `DRAFT` /
`PUBLISHED`. If ontologies follow yours, the catalog carries two state
vocabularies.
3. **Ownership of the term-to-concept link.** Would you rather
`TermConceptRef` lived in
`glossary-design.md`? If so I will drop it from mine and reference yours,
so only one document owns
it.
No objection from me if the link is deferred until this design lands.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
