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 <[email protected]>, Mandy
Chessell/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc: [email protected]
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 <[email protected]>
To: David Radley <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:56 PM
To: David Radley
Cc: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49
Assistant: Janet Brooks - [email protected]
From: David Radley/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To: [email protected]
Date: 23/09/2016 17:05
Subject: Re: Rename trait to classification
Hi Madhan,
That would be great :-) thanks, David.
From: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: 23/09/2016 16:48
Subject: Re: Rename trait to classification
Sent by: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]>
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" <[email protected]> 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
