Hi Nigel, Sure. Madhan indicated that the current Ranger Atlas integration is only around tags. For a metadata driven , policy driven approach - it is likely that we may need to expose other Atlas artifacts to Ranger for example entities, attributes and relationships; we also mentioned roles. all the best, David.
From: Nigel L Jones/UK/IBM@IBMGB To: dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org Date: 03/05/2017 14:08 Subject: RE: Meeting on 25th of April about relationships design Unfortunately I was unable to make the discussion call. Can you elaborate on "ranger integration being important". I would certainly agree, but intrigued as to whether you noted any particular points. Or was it more recognition that we do need to think about this? At the last meeting it was felt a new Jira should be opened to capture any improvements to ranger integration? -----Original Message----- From: David Radley [mailto:david_rad...@uk.ibm.com] Sent: 02 May 2017 18:27 To: atlas <dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org> Subject: Meeting on 25th of April about relationships design Hello, I thought I would share details of some very productive meetings I attended about Atlas relationships. On the 25th of April, We discussed the Jira 1690 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1690 on relationships. I think this Jira is an enabler for a lot of capability including a new glossary https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1410. The meeting attendees included committers and a PMC member (Madhan) an...@hortonworks.com, ames...@hortonworks.com, David Radley/UK/IBM@IBMGB,, Graham Wallis/UK/IBM@IBMGB,, Mandy Chessell/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Nigel L Jones/UK/IBM@IBMGB, ssubraman...@hortonworks.com, sven...@hortonworks.com, sshivapra...@hortonworks.com. "Madhan Neethiraj" <mad...@apache.org>, I walked through the relationships design. We had a vibrant discussion around the approach to take. We are thinking that in addition to a technical document, it would be useful to story board how this would effect users, taking into a account user interfaces. We are looking to pursue both these approaches. On the technical front, I think more examples of how these relationships would look in metadata , instance level and in the graph would be helpful. For these story board - higher level stories, there are projects detailing proposals how metadata can/should be used by many different governance roles. These projects are proposals for inclusion in Atlas. Various companies have contributed to the thinking around these projects; I would like to explicitly invite the community to feedback/ contribute to these projects. The projects are being documented in the newly opened up Atlas wiki : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ATLAS/Atlas+Projects On the 2nd of May The meeting attendees included committers and PMC members (Suma and Madhan) an...@hortonworks.com, ames...@hortonworks.com, David Radley/UK/IBM@IBMGB,, , ssubraman...@hortonworks.com, sven...@hortonworks.com, sshivapra...@hortonworks.com. "Madhan Neethiraj" <mad...@apache.org>, eos...@us.ibm.com We reviewed the v1.5 design document for Jira 1690. Madhan suggested the attribute names of the end points were held in the relationship object and not in the the typedefs, we all felt this simplified the model. We agreed not use structures in the relationship as they require a separate vertex; instead we would allow simple attributes. We talked of the relationship being a vertex to cut down the number of edges especially for many to many relationships. We agreed to add cardinality to the end points. We agreed to remove iscontainer from the relationshipdef endpoint and have a containerendpoint in the relationshipDef. We agreed there was enough consensus to start coding. We agreed that we would look at the search use cases then move onto the glossary. We talked about Ranger integration being important. I look forward to hearing your thoughts,ideas and responses, all the best, David. 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 3AUUnless 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
