[jira] [Comment Edited] (ATLAS-1836) Area 0 of the open metadata model
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16130737#comment-16130737 ] David Radley edited comment on ATLAS-1836 at 10/4/17 12:29 PM: --- https://reviews.apache.org/r/62463/ was (Author: davidrad): https://reviews.apache.org/r/61688/ > Area 0 of the open metadata model > - > > Key: ATLAS-1836 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836 > Project: Atlas > Issue Type: Task > Components: atlas-core >Reporter: Mandy Chessell >Assignee: David Radley > Labels: OpenMetadata, VirtualDataConnector > Attachments: ATLAS-1836-1.patch, ATLAS1836-2.patch, > ATLAS1836-3.patch, ATLAS-1836.patch > > > This task delivers the JSON files for the new models that describe types for > Area 0 in the open metadata model. This area covers base types. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ATLAS-1836) Area 0 of the open metadata model
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16132991#comment-16132991 ] David Radley edited comment on ATLAS-1836 at 8/18/17 1:59 PM: -- added patch ATLAS-1836-1 : - removed 2 infrastructure supertypes I had added - changed all attributes to optional and not to be indexed - added descriptions to all the entities where we have the text readily available - fixed a couple of glitches I noticed - added 0017 model was (Author: davidrad): This latest patch: - removed 2 infrastructure supertypes I had added - changed all attributes to optional and not to be indexed - added descriptions to all the entities where we have the text readily available - fixed a couple of glitches I noticed > Area 0 of the open metadata model > - > > Key: ATLAS-1836 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836 > Project: Atlas > Issue Type: Task > Components: atlas-core >Reporter: Mandy Chessell >Assignee: David Radley > Labels: OpenMetadata, VirtualDataConnector > Attachments: ATLAS-1836-1.patch, ATLAS-1836.patch > > > This task delivers the JSON files for the new models that describe types for > Area 0 in the open metadata model. This area covers base types. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ATLAS-1836) Area 0 of the open metadata model
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16132991#comment-16132991 ] David Radley edited comment on ATLAS-1836 at 8/18/17 1:57 PM: -- This latest patch: - removed 2 infrastructure supertypes I had added - changed all attributes to optional and not to be indexed - added descriptions to all the entities where we have the text readily available - fixed a couple of glitches I noticed was (Author: davidrad): This latest patch: - 2 infrastructure supertypes I had added - changes all attributes to optional and not to be indexed - added descriptions to all the entities where we have the text readily available - fixed a couple of glitches I noticed > Area 0 of the open metadata model > - > > Key: ATLAS-1836 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836 > Project: Atlas > Issue Type: Task > Components: atlas-core >Reporter: Mandy Chessell >Assignee: David Radley > Labels: OpenMetadata, VirtualDataConnector > Attachments: ATLAS-1836-1.patch, ATLAS-1836.patch > > > This task delivers the JSON files for the new models that describe types for > Area 0 in the open metadata model. This area covers base types. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ATLAS-1836) Area 0 of the open metadata model
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16128847#comment-16128847 ] David Radley edited comment on ATLAS-1836 at 8/16/17 2:34 PM: -- [~mandy_chessell] I am looking at Locations and notice the nestedLocations. It seems that we should have this is a containment relationship. I suspect with physical locations - this could be composition, with a single parent location. I suspect in other cases Aggregation might be more flexible. At the moment I am thinking we should at least use aggregation and many to many. I am thinking we should special case physical location and have a composition hierarchy (though disputed territories might not fit here) - I could see this as being more intuitive than a many to many aggregation? On 0030. I think OperatingPlaform should have a supertype. Do we count this as infrastructure or have it as a Referenceable? Also I wonder around HostOperatingPlaform relationship, could we have an aggregation relationship with the platform aggregating hosts? On 0035 the cluster and virtual containers should probably be aggregations. was (Author: davidrad): [~mandy_chessell] I am looking at Locations and notice the nestedLocations. It seems that we should have this is a containment relationship. I suspect with physical locations - this could be composition, with a single parent location. I suspect in other cases Aggregation might be more flexible. At the moment I am thinking we should at least use aggregation and many to many. I am thinking we should special case physical location and have a composition hierarchy (though disputed territories might not fit here) - I could see this as being more intuitive than a many to many aggregation? On 0030. I think OperatingPlaform should have a supertype. Do we count this as infrastructure or have it as a Referenceable? Also I wonder around HostOperatingPlaform relationship, could we have an aggregation relationship with the platform aggregating hosts? > Area 0 of the open metadata model > - > > Key: ATLAS-1836 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836 > Project: Atlas > Issue Type: Task > Components: atlas-core >Reporter: Mandy Chessell >Assignee: Mandy Chessell > Labels: OpenMetadata, VirtualDataConnector > Attachments: 0005LinkedMediaTypes.json > > > This task delivers the JSON files for the new models that describe types for > Area 0 in the open metadata model. This area covers base types. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ATLAS-1836) Area 0 of the open metadata model
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16128847#comment-16128847 ] David Radley edited comment on ATLAS-1836 at 8/16/17 2:28 PM: -- [~mandy_chessell] I am looking at Locations and notice the nestedLocations. It seems that we should have this is a containment relationship. I suspect with physical locations - this could be composition, with a single parent location. I suspect in other cases Aggregation might be more flexible. At the moment I am thinking we should at least use aggregation and many to many. I am thinking we should special case physical location and have a composition hierarchy (though disputed territories might not fit here) - I could see this as being more intuitive than a many to many aggregation? On 0030. I think OperatingPlaform should have a supertype. Do we count this as infrastructure or have it as a Referenceable? Also I wonder around HostOperatingPlaform relationship, could we have an aggregation relationship with the platform aggregating hosts? was (Author: davidrad): [~mandy_chessell] I am looking at Locations and notice the nestedLocations. It seems that we should have this is a containment relationship. I suspect with physical locations - this could be composition, with a single parent location. I suspect in other cases Aggregation might be more flexible. At the moment I am thinking we should at least use aggregation and many to many. I am thinking we should special case physical location and have a composition hierarchy (though disputed territories might not fit here) - I could see this as being more intuitive than a many to many aggregation? On 0030. I think OperatingPlaform should have a supertype. Do we count this as infrastructure or have it as a Referenceable? Also I suggest HostOperatingPlaform relationship is containment relationship. > Area 0 of the open metadata model > - > > Key: ATLAS-1836 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836 > Project: Atlas > Issue Type: Task > Components: atlas-core >Reporter: Mandy Chessell >Assignee: Mandy Chessell > Labels: OpenMetadata, VirtualDataConnector > Attachments: 0005LinkedMediaTypes.json > > > This task delivers the JSON files for the new models that describe types for > Area 0 in the open metadata model. This area covers base types. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ATLAS-1836) Area 0 of the open metadata model
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16128847#comment-16128847 ] David Radley edited comment on ATLAS-1836 at 8/16/17 2:24 PM: -- [~mandy_chessell] I am looking at Locations and notice the nestedLocations. It seems that we should have this is a containment relationship. I suspect with physical locations - this could be composition, with a single parent location. I suspect in other cases Aggregation might be more flexible. At the moment I am thinking we should at least use aggregation and many to many. I am thinking we should special case physical location and have a composition hierarchy (though disputed territories might not fit here) - I could see this as being more intuitive than a many to many aggregation? On 0030. I think OperatingPlaform should have a supertype. Do we count this as infrastructure or have it as a Referenceable? Also I suggest HostOperatingPlaform relationship is containment relationship. was (Author: davidrad): [~mandy_chessell] I am looking at Locations and notice the nestedLocations. It seems that we should have this is a containment relationship. I suspect with physical locations - this could be composition, with a single parent location. I suspect in other cases Aggregation might be more flexible. At the moment I am thinking we should at least use aggregation and many to many. I am thinking we should special case physical location and have a composition hierarchy (though disputed territories might not fit here) - I could see this as being more intuitive than a many to many aggregation? On 0030. I think OperatingPlaform should have a supertype. Do we count this as infrastructure or have it as a Referenceable? > Area 0 of the open metadata model > - > > Key: ATLAS-1836 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836 > Project: Atlas > Issue Type: Task > Components: atlas-core >Reporter: Mandy Chessell >Assignee: Mandy Chessell > Labels: OpenMetadata, VirtualDataConnector > Attachments: 0005LinkedMediaTypes.json > > > This task delivers the JSON files for the new models that describe types for > Area 0 in the open metadata model. This area covers base types. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (ATLAS-1836) Area 0 of the open metadata model
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16128847#comment-16128847 ] David Radley edited comment on ATLAS-1836 at 8/16/17 2:23 PM: -- [~mandy_chessell] I am looking at Locations and notice the nestedLocations. It seems that we should have this is a containment relationship. I suspect with physical locations - this could be composition, with a single parent location. I suspect in other cases Aggregation might be more flexible. At the moment I am thinking we should at least use aggregation and many to many. I am thinking we should special case physical location and have a composition hierarchy (though disputed territories might not fit here) - I could see this as being more intuitive than a many to many aggregation? On 0030. I think OperatingPlaform should have a supertype. Do we count this as infrastructure or have it as a Referenceable? was (Author: davidrad): [~mandy_chessell] I am looking at Locations and notice the nestedLocations. It seems that we should have this is a containment relationship. I suspect with physical locations - this could be composition, with a single parent location. I suspect in other cases Aggregation might be more flexible. At the moment I am thinking we should at least use aggregation and many to many. I am thinking we should special case physical location and have a composition hierarchy (though disputed territories might not fit here) - I could see this as being more intuitive than a many to many aggregation? > Area 0 of the open metadata model > - > > Key: ATLAS-1836 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1836 > Project: Atlas > Issue Type: Task > Components: atlas-core >Reporter: Mandy Chessell >Assignee: Mandy Chessell > Labels: OpenMetadata, VirtualDataConnector > Attachments: 0005LinkedMediaTypes.json > > > This task delivers the JSON files for the new models that describe types for > Area 0 in the open metadata model. This area covers base types. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
