Thanks Mandy for the detailed explanation. To add to what David has already stated,
We could expose two higher level ATLAS types/concepts which are based on current Traits. 1. Classification - that are locked down and that have a classification scheme to group together a set of classification concepts 2. Annotation - that are free form and are not locked down So Traits could be renamed as Annotation and Classification is a specialization of an Annotation with an additional classification scheme associated with it. Thoughts? Suma On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:48 AM, David Radley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Hermanth, > I appreciate your feedback and openness. It was an interesting point you > made about which roles were authoring traits and terms. I guess this is > not something Atlas would police. > > The current traits could be : > 1) locked down so only the governance team could update them; in that case > they would be classifications that governance rules could act on. > or > 2) Not locked down so a wider audience (business personas) could create > them. > > I am suggesting: > - renaming traits to classifications for use by the governance team. > - using terms as glossary terms for use more widely by business users. > > Does this work - or am I missing something ? > all the best, David. > > > > > > > From: Hemanth Yamijala <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: 26/09/2016 13:09 > Subject: Re: Rename trait to classification > > > > Hi David, > > Reg. the point I made about sharing traits - I don't want to give an > impression that this as an agreed upon point. Apologize if I conveyed > that sense. > > It is a fact that Atlas today has two concepts that are slightly > related: Traits (aka Tags) and Business Terms. The latter was new in > 0.7. IMO, it is important that the Atlas community tries to converge > on an unambiguous definition of these concepts as the product would be > driven around these. > > With respect to this thread, I am trying to fit in whether > "classification" is a new concept. Or it overlaps with one of the two > existing ones (which we are trying to rename). > > I am certainly not a domain expert on this in any sense :-) - so > hoping that others who are would provide guidance (@aahn - ping?). > > Thanks > hemanth > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:59 PM, David Radley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > >
