[jira] [Commented] (ATLAS-1178) APIs in DefaultMetadataService should return POJOs

2016-09-25 Thread Shwetha G S (JIRA) 

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1178?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15522127#comment-15522127
 ] 

Shwetha G S commented on ATLAS-1178:


DefaultMetadataService is the API internal to the service. server-api module 
has only the server side APIs and not exposed to clients. So, lets leave 
DefaultMetadataService in server-api

DefaultMetadataService handles both type and entities related APIs, and hence 
the name MetadataService

Yes, the plan is to remove json awareness from MetadataService, and the 
serialisation/deserialisation should be transparent to even the rest APIs and 
should be handled by jersey automatically. Yes, this is to avoid the extra json 
processing. EntityResult is already a POJO

> APIs in DefaultMetadataService should return POJOs
> --
>
> Key: ATLAS-1178
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1178
> Project: Atlas
>  Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Shwetha G S
>
> DefaultMetadataService APIs accept/return json strings and the rest APIs end 
> up serialising and deserialising everytime. DefaultMetadataService APIs are 
> internal APIs and should accept/return POJOs



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Re: Rename trait to classification

2016-09-25 Thread Hemanth Yamijala 
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 
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 
To: "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" 
Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
Subject:Re: Rename trait to classification
Sent by:Madhan Neethiraj 



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"  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

Re: Rename trait to classification

2016-09-25 Thread Mandy Chessell 
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 
To: "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" 
Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
Subject:Re: Rename trait to classification
Sent by:Madhan Neethiraj 



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"  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