[PDB Data Ownership-TF] Scope Wording change

[Arnold Nipper]

I fully support this as the change to make to the Scope.

Cheers
Arnold

On 18.12.2019 17:45, Chris Caputo 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
> 
> 


-- 
Arnold Nipper
email: arnold at peeringdb.com
mobile: +49 172 2650958

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/dataownership-tf/attachments/20191218/1fca4646/attachment-0001.sig>