[PDB Data Ownership-TF] Scope Wording change

[Darrell Budic]

Works for me, I support. 

  -Darrell

> On Dec 18, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>> On 18.12.2019 16:51, Chris Caputo wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>>>> All
>>>> 
>>>> On 18.12.2019 16:09, Chris Caputo wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 18.12.2019 00:54, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is mainly changing:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> “This Policy Document will include a clear description of each object,
>>>>>>> sub-object, and associated data, respectively, as well as*which type of
>>>>>>> user (network, IXP, etc.) *should be allowed to create and update them. “
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To: 
>>>>>>> “This Policy Document will include a clear description of each object,
>>>>>>> sub-object, and associated data, respectively, as well as well as *who*
>>>>>>> should be allowed to create and update them.”
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you have any objections to this, you can raise them until 24 Dec on
>>>>>>> the mailing list. 
>>>>>>> After that I will get the Scope on the website changed too. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> for me it's unclear what is meant by "sub-object" and "associated data".
>>>>>> For me there are only objects (i.e. fac, ix, ixfac, ixlan, ixpfx, net,
>>>>>> netfac, netixlan and poc. And as-set which imho shouldn't be there) and
>>>>>> relations between these objects expressed by ids. E.g. in netixlan we
>>>>>> find net_id and ix_id (and ixlan_id, but this id in turn is pointed to
>>>>>> by the the very same ix_id).
>>>>> Arnold, as I understand it, the Scope is meant to be broad and not address 
>>>>> specific present-day PeeringDB object types.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> so what is "each object" then referring to?
>>> 
>>> It is referring to PeeringDB objects.  I just meant they aren't addressed 
>>> specificially in the Scope.
>>> 
>>>> I'm not a native speaker, but would rephrase this to
>>> 
>>> I think you write English quite well, actually.
>>> 
>>>> “This Policy Document will include a clear description of each object
>>>> and the relation between each other, as well as well as the user
>>>> permission system to create, update, and delete objects".
>>> 
>>> In the most recent conference call we tried to address your comment in the 
>>> Policy Document:
>>> 
>>>  - "which type of user (network, IXP, etc.)"
>>>  - There is no distinction between users regarding their network, IXP etc
>>> 
>>> by getting away from "user" with a change to "who" since we are talking 
>>> about the type of user (ie., their perspective on a given object), not the 
>>> PeeringDB "user" object specifically.  Thus if "user permission system" is 
>>> replaced with "who should be allowed" in your verbage, ala:
>>> 
>>>  “This Policy Document will include a clear description of each object
>>>  and the relation between each other, as well as well as who should be 
>>>  allowed to create, update, and delete objects".
>>> 
>>> Would you be comfortable with that?
>>> 
>> 
>> Fine by me. Now you only have to deal with Job's suggestion which imho
>> is a fine one as well.
> 
> :-)
> 
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Job Snijders wrote:
>> We should replace "object" with "data element"
> 
> So that gives:
> 
>  - “This Policy Document will include a clear description of each data 
>    element and the relation between each other, as well as who should be 
>    allowed to create, update, and delete them".
> 
> Anyone else support this as the change to make to the Scope?  (I do too.)
> 
> Chris-- 
> DataOwnership-TF mailing list
> DataOwnership-TF at lists.peeringdb.com <mailto:DataOwnership-TF at lists.peeringdb.com>
> https://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataownership-tf <https://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataownership-tf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/dataownership-tf/attachments/20191218/cbf10c33/attachment-0001.html>