Re: [cti] MVP Discussion

["Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>]

Yes.... And when we talked about this early on, we talked about having a translation object itself, instead of using a relationship object... This would guarantee that you can not tie things to a translation... You can only tie things to the original object. 

1) Only the content creator can version a TLO

2) Because of #1, we need a separate object to do Translations. 

3) If we use a Translation object instead of a Relationship, than everything works and it is a win-win for everyone.  

[
  {
    "id": "report--cbf7a3eb-5ef0-42ef-a30c-14be2a14cc1d",
    "type": "report",
    "lang": "en",
    "created_at": "2016-01-29T21:18:33Z",
    "title": "Hi, this text is in English",
    "description": "So is this"
  },
  {
    "id": "translation--5cfa580e-ea87-4d11-b0cc-600af7a64968",
    "type": "translation",
    "lang": "es",
    "created_at": "2016-01-29T21:18:33Z",
    "title": "Hola, este texto es español",
    "description": "Asi es esto",

    "translated_ref": "report--cbf7a3eb-5ef0-42ef-a30c-14be2a14cc1d"
  }
]

Thanks,

Bret

Bret Jordan CISSP

Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO

Blue Coat Systems

PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050

"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg." 

On Apr 8, 2016, at 11:09, Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

I think the root of what Terry is trying to get at is less about source of truth and more about relationship context. The concensus was among many of the practitioners *and* vendors that if we have a relationship linking two objects, that relationship should exist independant of version - aka implicit versioning - so that if I version an object I do not have to re-issue relationships, rather those relationships are valid for all versions. There wasn't anyone who really backed the idea of having to recreate relationships every time you versioned something.

We would therefore assume that we want the same to hold true for translations - if I translate an object, all of the relationships relevant to that object should be maintained.

Sent from IBM Verse

Aharon Chernin --- Re: [cti] Re: MVP Discussion ---

From:	"Aharon Chernin" <achernin@soltra.com>
To:	"Terry MacDonald" <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>, "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
Cc:	"Masuoka, Ryusuke" <masuoka.ryusuke@jp.fujitsu.com>, cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	Fri, Apr 8, 2016 9:40 AM
Subject:	Re: [cti] Re: MVP Discussion

---

This way of doing translations causes the same problems as the explicit versioning... relationships no longer point to the latest version of an object (as there may be two translations of the same object). Which object is the 'truth'? Which version of the object is the one that everyone should connect their relationships to?

Terry, you bring up a good point. This point may or may-not be related to versioning.

I don’t believe that any version of an object that contains an assertion as “the truth”. It’s just another version of something that “could” be true based on someone’s subjective opinion. Version 1 of an indicator could be more truthful than Version 99 of an indicator, who knows?

Aharon

From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>
Date: Friday, April 8, 2016 at 7:18 AM
To: "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
Cc: "Masuoka, Ryusuke" <masuoka.ryusuke@jp.fujitsu.com>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: MVP Discussion

This way of doing translations causes the same problems as the explicit versioning... relationships no longer point to the latest version of an object (as there may be two translations of the same object). Which object is the 'truth'? Which version of the object is the one that everyone should connect their relationships to?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail