-
Couldn't load subscription status.
- Fork 21
Specify format for fullyQualifiedName #16
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
@SpyQuel what do you think about this proposal ?
I think this proposal is actually excellent.
I agree when it is said that "the current purpose of the field is unclear", since we are inheriting it from the OpenMetadata specification, but we are not actually using this field at all. Making it more structured and adding real value to it would make it more interesting.
We can improve this proposal by making the proposed structure something verified by the CUE file. IMHO we should keep this field optional, but we can enforce that when it is present it should be compliant with the proposed structure.
IMHO we should keep this field optional, but we can enforce that when it is present it should be compliant with the proposed structure.
I agree on this 👍
Can we move forward on this ?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Summary
With this PR I propose to use the common convention for
fullyQualifiedNameto be a dot-separated path, aligning this field value with the Open Metadata specifications.Context
The field
fullyQualifiedNameoccurs in many entities in the Data Product specifications and it is currently a free-form string "description". This somewhat overlaps with fieldsname(that is the human-readable display name) anddescription(that should be a long-form description). The current purpose of the field is unclear IMHO.Proposal
In SWE, a "fully qualified name" represents a string representation that includes a path like identifier
package.module.class_name, as opposed to the simplenamethat would beclass_name.In the Open Metadata Specifications, the field
fullyQualifiedNameis specified following the above convention across many entities. Here a few examples:serviceName.databaseName.tableNameServiceName.DatabaseNameServiceName.PipelineNameThe Open Metadata specifications don't have the concept of Data Products, Output Ports and other entities related to the Data Mesh paradigm, but nonetheless the purpose of the field is similar.
I propose to align the field
fullyQualifiedNamein the Data Product specifications to follow the common convention followed by Open Metadata.Here I report an example of the fields with the proposed convention:
fullyQualifiedName: domain_name.dataproduct_namefullyQualifiedName: domain_name.dataproduct_name.outputport_namefullyQualifiedName: domain_name.dataproduct_name.workload_namefullyQualifiedName: domain_name.dataproduct_name.storage_area_namefullyQualifiedName: domain_name.dataproduct_name.observability_name