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 <mandy_chess...@uk.ibm.com> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:56 PM To: David Radley Cc: dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org 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: mandy_chess...@uk.ibm.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49 Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrook...@uk.ibm.com From: David Radley/UK/IBM@IBMGB To: dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org Date: 23/09/2016 17:05 Subject: Re: Rename trait to classification Hi Madhan, That would be great :-) thanks, David. From: Madhan Neethiraj <mad...@apache.org> To: "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" <dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org> Date: 23/09/2016 16:48 Subject: Re: Rename trait to classification Sent by: Madhan Neethiraj <mneethi...@hortonworks.com> 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" <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com> 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
