Re: [cti] Intel note and opinion

["Mr. Stefan Hagen" <stefan@hagen.link>]

Either #2 or #3 - please no strong overlap for fields with weak semantics (me joining vehemently the camp of Jason et al.)

I also think Patrick's suggestion to somehow rename into "Analyst Assertion(s)" could also be considered (If I did not misunderstand that one).

The specific sounding "Intelligence Note" vs. "Opinion" ending up in a simple "Note" would IMO open a can of even more volatility (like a description attribute taking over).

/Stefan

On 10/04/17 22:30, Wunder, John A. wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> 
>  
> 
> After a lot of conversation on intel note and opinion, we’ve narrowed
> down a lot of the questions on these two objects but have one big one
> remaining. Specifically, with both intel note and opinion existing as
> separate objects a few people (notably Jason and Bret) have noted that
> there may be overlap and in fact the objects should be merged into one.
> The thinking is that giving an opinion is essentially the same as giving
> extra analysis about something (or is at least handled the same way most
> of the time) and having two separate objects will be confusing for
> people. So, here’s how I would outline the questions:
> 
>  
> 
> 1.       Should opinion and intel note remain separate objects?
> 
> a.       Merging them would provide a single object to provide a simple
> opinion on a scale (agree/disagree), an opinion on a scale with a text
> explanation (agree and here’s why), and added analysis w/ no opinion
> scale (here’s extra info about this object).
> 
> b.       Separating them would distinguish providing an opinion
> (agree/disagree) from providing extra analysis
> 
> 2.       If we go with option b and we have two separate objects, should
> opinion have an optional description field?
> 
> a.       Having a description on opinion keeps all information about the
> opinion in a single object.
> 
> b.       Not having a description on opinion would mean that opinions
> are just the agree/disagree statements. People would use the intel note
> object to capture their explanation and therefore all text commentary
> would be provided by intel note.
> 
>  
> 
> It seems like the key thing people are wrestling with is whether there’s
> a distinction between giving extra analysis or context to something and
> giving an opinion about something. I.e., when people are doing shared
> analysis is it important to distinguish me providing an opinion on your
> object (agree/disagree/neutral) from me adding extra context
> (human-readable notes) to your data?
> 
>  
> 
> So, combining those questions, we have three options:
> 
>  
> 
> 1.       Opinion and intel note are separate objects, and opinion has a
> description. To have a text explanation of an opinion, you would use the
> description field on the opinion object.
> 
> 2.       Opinion and intel note are separate objects, and opinion does
> not have a description. To have a text explanation of an opinion, you
> would use an intel note and link it to the opinion.
> 
> 3.       Opinion and intel note are merged (likely calling it intel
> note, since not all of them would be opinions) and you would use that
> object to describe opinions, opinions w/ descriptions, and added analysis
> 
>  
> 
> People can reply with their reasoning and pros/cons, but I’m
> particularly interested in hearing people who have not chimed in yet.
> What is your preferred option? Any thoughts on the reasoning?
> 
>  
> 
> FYI, here are the latest working versions of intel note and opinion, in
> Google Docs. These are roughly option #1, based on the recent working
> call and a poll in Slack.
> 
>  
> 
> -          Intel note:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qD9KBQcVcY4FlG9n_VGhqacaeiLlNcQ7zVEjc8I3b4/edit#heading=h.74spnst8naxc
> 
> -          Opinion:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qD9KBQcVcY4FlG9n_VGhqacaeiLlNcQ7zVEjc8I3b4/edit#heading=h.haeazu2sh3sq
> 
>  
> 
> My own opinion (sorry I know this pun is getting old) is that giving an
> opinion is distinct from adding analyst notes or extra context and
> therefore I prefer #1. My second choice would be #2, because I think #3
> results in an ambiguous object that does too many things and can have
> completely orthogonal sets of fields, which to me is an indication that
> it really should be two objects.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John