I thought it also worth mentioning that we touched on what impact this design might have in terms of ranger integration, ie the way classifications that might be used in policies could be affected. David gave an example of expires_on .
As a general point, I think it makes sense (in very general terms) to * initially ensure the behaviour is backwards-compatible * consider any additional capability in a subsequent JIRA But I wonder if David you could clarify what you were thinking of in terms of policy? This technical feature ATLAS-1690 supports the glossary proposal in ATLAS-1410, classification schemes in ATLAS-1689. My intent is to propose a new consumer-centric API to support Ranger in ATLAS-1696, but to do this after those enabling features are coming in place. This would deal with the more complex structure (for example asset -> business term -> classification scheme) but flatten it initially to the same structure Ranger sees today. The example mentioned in our discussion & In the design doc was expires-on, which is commonly used as an example when creating policies with atlas/ranger today. Were you thinking purely of the way the more sophisticated glossary is implemented, or some enhanced externally visible capability that made sense? Nigel. -----Original Message----- From: David Radley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 April 2017 10:07 To: David Radley <[email protected]> Cc: Madhan Neethiraj <[email protected]> Subject: Meeting on 25th of April abiout relationships design Hello, I thought I would share details of a meeting I attended on the 25th of April, where we discusses the Jira 1690 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1690 on relationships. I think this Jira is an enabler for a lot of capability including a new glossary https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-1410. The meeting attendees included committers and a PMC member (Madhan) [email protected], [email protected], David Radley/UK/IBM@IBMGB,, Graham Wallis/UK/IBM@IBMGB,, Mandy Chessell/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Nigel L Jones/UK/IBM@IBMGB, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. "Madhan Neethiraj" <[email protected]>, I walked through the relationships design. We had a vibrant discussion around the approach to take. We are thinking that in addition to a technical document, it would be useful to story board how this would effect users, taking into a account user interfaces. We are looking to pursue both these approaches. On the technical front, I think more examples of how these relationships would look in metadata , instance level and in the graph would be helpful. For these story board - higher level stories, there are projects detailing proposals how metadata can/should be used by many different governance roles. These projects are proposals for inclusion in Atlas. Various companies have contributed to the thinking around these projects; I would like to explicitly invite the community to feedback/ contribute to these projects. The projects are being documented in the newly opened up Atlas wiki : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ATLAS/Atlas+Projects I look forward to hearing your thoughts,ideas and responses, all the best, David. Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AUUnless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
