Rename trait to classification

[David Radley <da...@uk.ibm.com>]

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

Re: Rename trait to classification

[Mandy Chessell <ma...@uk.ibm.com>]

Hello Hemanth, David,
This is a great discussion.   These concepts are all related, in that they 
are linked to data descriptions (such as schemas) to characterise data. 
However, I think your probing is right, the governance classifications are 
slightly different from traits and glossary terms. 

Glossary terms are focused on the meaning of the data.  They follow the 
structure of the subject area, and link related terms together to show 
potential object, attributes, relationships that are typically found 
together.   Traits seem to offer an more informal means to characterise 
data.   These seem useful for characterising data specific for particular 
projects, or areas of special interest to the data lake team.

The governance classifications are a formal definition.  They are often 
defined as company-wide values that most employees are trained on.  So a 
deployment of Atlas in a new organization could well involve adding their 
existing classification schemes to the Atlas repository.   The values I 
shared in the earlier email are those we suggest for organizations that do 
not currently have any information governance. 

The values in each classification scheme are kept small (to keep them 
memorable) and then the governance program is built around them.  So, for 
example, each system has a set of rules for how it manages data for each 
of the classification values.   When new systems are brought in, new rules 
may be defined, but the employees still only have to know the standard 
classification schemes. 

As we continue to enhance the work of the governance enforcement, these 
classifications will be the key values encoded in the rules.  For a 
sophisticated organization with a company-wide data strategy, the 
classifications are often linked to the glossary terms and the glossary 
terms are linked to the data schemas.  This means the same classifications 
(and hence rules) are applied to the same type of data irrespective of the 
system it came from.  Alternatively, where system owners want to control 
how the data from their systems are classified, the governance 
classifications are linked directly to the schemas and so there may be 
variation in the way a certain type of data (eg credit card numbers) are 
governed.

In either case, the classifications need to be determined where data is 
accessed and so we need a fast look-up mechanism for these values.

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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49

Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@uk.ibm.com



From: 
To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
Date:   26/09/2016 08:09
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 <da...@uk.ibm.com> 
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 <hy...@hortonworks.com>
> To:     David Radley <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> 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 <ma...@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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49
>
> Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@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 <ma...@apache.org>
> To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" 
<de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
> Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
> Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>

Re: Rename trait to classification

[David Radley <da...@uk.ibm.com>]

Hi Suma,
I agree that it is important to split out these different types of 
metadata.

One way we can split metadata types at a high level is:
1) Physical assets
2) Glossary
3) Governance Definitions
4) Collaboration and contributions
5) Models and schemas

I would see the annotations as existing in area 4 and the classifications 
in area 3. As they are used for different purposes, I would be 
uncomfortable having one inherit from the other in any way that would be 
exposed at the API as this could blur the definitions. But we could do 
this internally to have code re-use. 

It seems to me that the most important use case for Atlas would be the 
governance one - in which classification is a key concept.

I wonder how important the free-form feedback orientated metadata use case 
is  (feedback tagging -annotations, comments , ratings could sit in this 
space too)? I know that collaboration features often are a big wow for 
users. 

  all the best, David. 




From:   Suma Shivaprasad <su...@gmail.com>
To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
Date:   27/09/2016 21:19
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification



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 <da...@uk.ibm.com>
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 <yh...@gmail.com>
> To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
> 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 <da...@uk.ibm.com>
> 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 <hy...@hortonworks.com>
> > To:     David Radley <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> > 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 <ma...@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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49
> >
> > Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@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 <ma...@apache.org>
> > To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org"
> <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> > Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
> > Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
> > Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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

Re: Rename trait to classification

[David Radley <da...@uk.ibm.com>]

Hi,
Great points Nigel!

I am looking to have a small checkin that does not impede the sort of 
enhancements you are talking of. 

Responding in order:

My thought was that we would use classification categories. Maybe one way 
to introduce ordering would be to have a 'has ordered children' flag on 
the category or a Ordered List container; then the children 
classifications would be expected to have a pointer to the next higher 
classification. If sub classification is important, it might be 
implemented using child categories, applying more than one simple 
classification or introducing inheritance classification.  My suggestion 
would be to deal with this in a follow on Jira to address a particular use 
case.. 

I see terms as top level elements in the current code because:
- there is a top level ResourceDefinition for Term at the same level as 
entity , taxonomy , tag etc. 
- the taxonomy API that returns terms as top level object. 
Internally terms do create a trait type and a trait instance. The traits 
are exposed in the API when an entity has a trait, which is what it knows 
the term as (maybe we could think of this in uml terms as an entity class, 
which has an attribute called trait of type term).  It seems to me that we 
could view a term as a semantic classification; so we could rename traits 
to classifications in the entity API. We do need to be able to apply 
governance classifications to terms; maybe not in the this initial Jira. 

If we police the uniqueness of classification names and existing traits 
are treated as classifications, that should be fine for migration use 
cases. If we then add in annotations which are not uniquely named- this 
gives us clear differentiations between classifications and annotations 
for the future. 
 
I agree we can do a follow on Jira to update the docs. 

all the best, David 




From:   Nigel L Jones/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
Date:   04/10/2016 16:56
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification



On 03/10/2016 11:35, David Radley wrote:

> I am not sure I follow your first point. The classification hierarchy I
> was thinking of is the classification scheme, which is not flat. Maybe 
we

* I'll try to clarify... Mandy pointed out in an earlier message that 
classifications may be ordered (for example going from unclassified to 
top secret) as well as contain subclassifications (the 
confidential/personal confidential example). We've not discussed 
ordering yet, but in a policy deployed in ranger I'd like to be 
logically able to have a condition like "confidentiality >= 
Confidential". Whilst this could be done (fudged?) with the name, or in 
the rule using "confidentiality in 
('Confidential','Sensitive','Restricted','Top Secret'), if the order is 
frequently used we need to add the notion of ordering to make rules 
easier to develop. See also my point below about flattening.. purely as 
an interim measure.


> should consider leaving term classification and term classification
> inheritance to a follow on Jira.

Agreed - I will open a new jira for my concern, though I was referring 
to classifications rather than business terms.

On another point, you refer in your proposal summary "top level elements 
like entity and terms" - but terms are implemented as traits today, 
whilst entities are .. entities.  I think we're suggesting 
classifications are also implemented as a specialization of annotations 
and thus as traits, so can traits have traits? - my familiarity with the 
data model/api isnt' developed enough yet... The distinction between 
entities and traits is getting more blurred - mostly it's the easy 
association & lack of guid yet in many ways terms may need to become 
first class entities in their own right?


> I agree that changing the existing Ranger tags to sync with Atlas
> classifications makes sense to not break existing Ranger integration.


Agreed - I suggest that the initial approach focusses on getting the 
model/api right in atlas, whilst considering that these classifications 
need to be used flexibly at the point of data access. Ranger initially 
preserves the simple "tag" approach used today (and must be part of any 
change in this area to avoid breakage) - perhaps flattening & label 
modification, and another JIRA is then opened (first here, then ranger) 
to explore better ways of providing more flexibility in the rules later.

Additionally:

  * Annotations - David you mentioned we may not wish to police 
uniqueness of annotations. In the existing implementation the name of a 
trait is unique. I think we would want to keep unique names, even for 
ad-hoc annotations - though to adopt a fully social model including 
commenting, voting we may also have to consider visibility of the 
annotations themselves (I'd be inclined to keep it simple though). I 
propose we open a social features JIRA to continue that longer termed 
discussion.

  * update the docs/wiki to add definitions for entity, term, 
classification, annotation, trait, classification, classification 
scheme, classification hierarchy etc. This could also be a sub-JIRA?

Nigel.





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

Re: Rename trait to classification

[Nigel Jones <jo...@uk.ibm.com>]

On 03/10/2016 11:35, David Radley wrote:

> I am not sure I follow your first point. The classification hierarchy I
> was thinking of is the classification scheme, which is not flat. Maybe we

* I'll try to clarify... Mandy pointed out in an earlier message that 
classifications may be ordered (for example going from unclassified to 
top secret) as well as contain subclassifications (the 
confidential/personal confidential example). We've not discussed 
ordering yet, but in a policy deployed in ranger I'd like to be 
logically able to have a condition like "confidentiality >= 
Confidential". Whilst this could be done (fudged?) with the name, or in 
the rule using "confidentiality in 
('Confidential','Sensitive','Restricted','Top Secret'), if the order is 
frequently used we need to add the notion of ordering to make rules 
easier to develop. See also my point below about flattening.. purely as 
an interim measure.


> should consider leaving term classification and term classification
> inheritance to a follow on Jira.

Agreed - I will open a new jira for my concern, though I was referring 
to classifications rather than business terms.

On another point, you refer in your proposal summary "top level elements 
like entity and terms" - but terms are implemented as traits today, 
whilst entities are .. entities.  I think we're suggesting 
classifications are also implemented as a specialization of annotations 
and thus as traits, so can traits have traits? - my familiarity with the 
data model/api isnt' developed enough yet... The distinction between 
entities and traits is getting more blurred - mostly it's the easy 
association & lack of guid yet in many ways terms may need to become 
first class entities in their own right?


> I agree that changing the existing Ranger tags to sync with Atlas
> classifications makes sense to not break existing Ranger integration.


Agreed - I suggest that the initial approach focusses on getting the 
model/api right in atlas, whilst considering that these classifications 
need to be used flexibly at the point of data access. Ranger initially 
preserves the simple "tag" approach used today (and must be part of any 
change in this area to avoid breakage) - perhaps flattening & label 
modification, and another JIRA is then opened (first here, then ranger) 
to explore better ways of providing more flexibility in the rules later.

Additionally:

  * Annotations - David you mentioned we may not wish to police 
uniqueness of annotations. In the existing implementation the name of a 
trait is unique. I think we would want to keep unique names, even for 
ad-hoc annotations - though to adopt a fully social model including 
commenting, voting we may also have to consider visibility of the 
annotations themselves (I'd be inclined to keep it simple though). I 
propose we open a social features JIRA to continue that longer termed 
discussion.

  * update the docs/wiki to add definitions for entity, term, 
classification, annotation, trait, classification, classification 
scheme, classification hierarchy etc. This could also be a sub-JIRA?

Nigel.

Re: Rename trait to classification

[David Radley <da...@uk.ibm.com>]

Hi Nigel,
I am not sure I follow your first point. The classification hierarchy I 
was thinking of is the classification scheme, which is not flat. Maybe we 
should consider leaving term classification and term classification 
inheritance to a follow on Jira. 

I agree that changing the existing Ranger tags to sync with Atlas 
classifications makes sense to not break existing Ranger integration.

  all the best, David. 




From:   Nigel L Jones/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
Date:   03/10/2016 11:22
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification



On 03/10/2016 09:10, David Radley wrote:
> Hi Suma and Mandy,
> I am looking to crystalize what changes we want to make here. How about:

The suggestions make sense to me David.

I'm also thinking about enforcement of governance actions driven by 
atlas -- for example via ranger.

A few thoughts on this:

* Since a classification can also contain sub-classifications (for 
example Mandy's point on confidentiality) and is no longer a flat 
space,n when we retrieve the classifications applied to an entity we 
need to also have easy access to the classification hierarchy - since 
different policies could take effect on different levels of the 
hierachy. Confidential vs Partner confidential for example. This affects 
the API & ranger's tagsync process (and possibly the way ranger tags 
work too). The simplest way to address this today might be to implicitly 
tag the entity when retrieved via API with all levels of the hierarchy, 
ie both confidential and partner confidential. Not the most efficient, 
but minimal change right now to ranger?

* we could only make use of classifications in the atlas/ranger tag 
synchronization process, not annotations as most likely it is the formal 
classifications that are used for policy enforcement. However we'd have 
to allow for this to revert to the old behaviour in configuration 
potentally to avoid breakage.

Nigel.





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

Re: Rename trait to classification

[Nigel Jones <jo...@uk.ibm.com>]

On 03/10/2016 09:10, David Radley wrote:
> Hi Suma and Mandy,
> I am looking to crystalize what changes we want to make here. How about:

The suggestions make sense to me David.

I'm also thinking about enforcement of governance actions driven by 
atlas -- for example via ranger.

A few thoughts on this:

* Since a classification can also contain sub-classifications (for 
example Mandy's point on confidentiality) and is no longer a flat 
space,n when we retrieve the classifications applied to an entity we 
need to also have easy access to the classification hierarchy - since 
different policies could take effect on different levels of the 
hierachy. Confidential vs Partner confidential for example. This affects 
the API & ranger's tagsync process (and possibly the way ranger tags 
work too). The simplest way to address this today might be to implicitly 
tag the entity when retrieved via API with all levels of the hierarchy, 
ie both confidential and partner confidential. Not the most efficient, 
but minimal change right now to ranger?

* we could only make use of classifications in the atlas/ranger tag 
synchronization process, not annotations as most likely it is the formal 
classifications that are used for policy enforcement. However we'd have 
to allow for this to revert to the old behaviour in configuration 
potentally to avoid breakage.

Nigel.

Re: Rename trait to classification

[David Radley <da...@uk.ibm.com>]

Hi Suma and Mandy,
I am looking to crystalize what changes we want to make here. How about:

1) As Suma suggests and Mandy liked, internally have classification 
inherit from an annotation. 
2) Top level elements like entity and term, can have 0 to many 
annotations.
3) Top level elements like entity and term, can have 0 to many 
classifications. 
4) Annotations and classifications both can have a description (and the 
system attributes like creation date) 
5) Annotation names are not policed to be unique
6) Classification names, need to match classifications in the 
classification scheme
7) Annotations cannot have classifications (if we find a compelling use 
case for this we could add this later)
8) Classifications cannot have annotations (if we find a compelling use 
case for this we could add this later)
9) Classification scheme could be a containment hierarchy of 
classification categories containing classifications.   This would avoid 
the need for something lie classification enumerations or values. 
10) Classification names are unique in a classification scheme. I suggest 
the fully qualified name is <classification scheme>.<classification name> 
. Similar to the way term is named in taxonomy. 
11) No classification inheritance  (if we find a compelling use case for 
this we could add this later)
12) No annotation inheritance.

I am interested in your feedback on this suggestion, 

        all the best, David. 




From:   Mandy Chessell/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To:     sumasai.shivaprasad@gmail.com
Cc:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
Date:   28/09/2016 15:12
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification



Hello Suma, 
I like that idea.   How would glossary terms fit into this scheme?  Are 
they also a subclass of annotation?  We link terms to assets to indicate 
the semantic meaning of a data item.  However, we may also link a 
classification to a term to say any data item linked to this term is also 
linked to this classification.  This pattern is used by organizations that 
want consistent treatment of data across all data sets/repositories.  It 
is particularly useful when supporting a specific regulation that requires 
a particular type of data to be governed in a particular way. 

This picture shows an example of a classification of "Sensitive" linked to 
a glossary term "Compensation Plan".  There are two specialisations of 
compensation plan in the glossary called "Annual Salary" and "Hourly Pay 
Rate".  These glossary terms are then linked to the schema of the data to 
identify that 45324 is a salary that should be considered sensitive. 



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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49

Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@uk.ibm.com 



From:        Suma Shivaprasad <su...@gmail.com> 
To:        dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org 
Date:        27/09/2016 16:19 
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification 



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 <da...@uk.ibm.com>
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 <yh...@gmail.com>
> To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
> 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 <da...@uk.ibm.com>
> 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 <hy...@hortonworks.com>
> > To:     David Radley <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> > 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 <ma...@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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49
> >
> > Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@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 <ma...@apache.org>
> > To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org"
> <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> > Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
> > Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
> > Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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

Re: Rename trait to classification

[Mandy Chessell <ma...@uk.ibm.com>]

Hello Suma,
I like that idea.   How would glossary terms fit into this scheme?  Are 
they also a subclass of annotation?  We link terms to assets to indicate 
the semantic meaning of a data item.  However, we may also link a 
classification to a term to say any data item linked to this term is also 
linked to this classification.  This pattern is used by organizations that 
want consistent treatment of data across all data sets/repositories.  It 
is particularly useful when supporting a specific regulation that requires 
a particular type of data to be governed in a particular way.

This picture shows an example of a classification of "Sensitive" linked to 
a glossary term "Compensation Plan".  There are two specialisations of 
compensation plan in the glossary called "Annual Salary" and "Hourly Pay 
Rate".  These glossary terms are then linked to the schema of the data to 
identify that 45324 is a salary that should be considered sensitive.



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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49

Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@uk.ibm.com



From:   Suma Shivaprasad <su...@gmail.com>
To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
Date:   27/09/2016 16:19
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification



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 <da...@uk.ibm.com>
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 <yh...@gmail.com>
> To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
> 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 <da...@uk.ibm.com>
> 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 <hy...@hortonworks.com>
> > To:     David Radley <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> > 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 <ma...@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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49
> >
> > Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@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 <ma...@apache.org>
> > To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org"
> <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> > Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
> > Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
> > Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>

Re: Rename trait to classification

[Nigel Jones <jo...@uk.ibm.com>]

On 27/09/2016 21:19, Suma Shivaprasad wrote:

 > 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.


One additional consideration once we've decided is to see if we can also 
persuade the Apache Ranger team to adopt the same terminology

The use of classifications to control access to data, ie to perform 
governance actions including audit, check, permit/deny, mask, filter 
etc, is very important to get the simplicity and scalability we need in 
governing data.

Today we refer to "tags" in atlas and ranger -- I wonder if ranger 
should then use "classification" too (though I'm also aware there are 
tag sources other than atlas, such as kafka)

In the ranger atlas tagsync process we pull all entities with traits - 
and so need to decide whether to
  - allow governance policies to refer to any traits (in proposal above 
annotation)
  - allow them to apply to classification only.

I think in most cases it is classification that matters, plus the volume 
of traits could get massive,  though any context can be relevant for 
making a policy decision. Perhaps we can differentiate on the properties 
of the trait as to whether to sync, and how they get used when composing 
a ranger rule. In fact that's another point, ranger uses the word 
"policy" when in my opinion it's a rule. A policy is imo logical ie 
"prevent access to PII data for normal users" and should be represented 
in Atlas whilst the rule is technology-specific, an implementation of 
the policy. This relationship needs recording too.

Do we have any of the atlas team also closely involved with ranger? I'm 
also happy to raise the issue over there, after we've decided how to 
best model. I'm looking more at that over here and how we should model 
these relationships.

Nigel.



---
Nigel Jones - Software Architect - IBM Analytics Group
IBM United Kingdom Limited / Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598 / Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. 
PO6 3AU

Re: Rename trait to classification

[Suma Shivaprasad <su...@gmail.com>]

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 <da...@uk.ibm.com>
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 <yh...@gmail.com>
> To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
> 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 <da...@uk.ibm.com>
> 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 <hy...@hortonworks.com>
> > To:     David Radley <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> > 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 <ma...@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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49
> >
> > Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@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 <ma...@apache.org>
> > To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org"
> <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> > Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
> > Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
> > Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>

Re: Rename trait to classification

[David Radley <da...@uk.ibm.com>]

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 <yh...@gmail.com>
To:     dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org
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 <da...@uk.ibm.com> 
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 <hy...@hortonworks.com>
> To:     David Radley <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> 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 <ma...@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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49
>
> Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@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 <ma...@apache.org>
> To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" 
<de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
> Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
> Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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

Re: Rename trait to classification

[Hemanth Yamijala <yh...@gmail.com>]

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 <da...@uk.ibm.com> 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 <hy...@hortonworks.com>
> To:     David Radley <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> 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 <ma...@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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49
>
> Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@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 <ma...@apache.org>
> To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
> Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
> Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
> Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>

Re: Rename trait to classification

[David Radley <da...@uk.ibm.com>]

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 <hy...@hortonworks.com>
To:     David Radley <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
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 <ma...@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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49

Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@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 <ma...@apache.org>
To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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







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

Re: Rename trait to classification

[Hemanth Yamijala <hy...@hortonworks.com>]

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 <ma...@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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49

Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@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 <ma...@apache.org>
To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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

Re: Rename trait to classification

[Mandy Chessell <ma...@uk.ibm.com>]

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_chessell@uk.ibm.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mandy-chessell/22/897/a49

Assistant: Janet Brooks - jsbrooks12@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 <ma...@apache.org>
To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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

Re: Rename trait to classification

[David Radley <da...@uk.ibm.com>]

Hi Madhan,
That would be great :-)  thanks, David. 



From:   Madhan Neethiraj <ma...@apache.org>
To:     "dev@atlas.incubator.apache.org" <de...@atlas.incubator.apache.org>
Date:   23/09/2016 16:48
Subject:        Re: Rename trait to classification
Sent by:        Madhan Neethiraj <mn...@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" <da...@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

Re: Rename trait to classification

[Madhan Neethiraj <ma...@apache.org>]

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" <da...@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