-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 183
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
results_group naming syntax #717
Comments
@adamb-kpmg while the name can't be identical, it certainly doesn't have to be an underscore. In fact, I believe I intended a dash and the underscore is a typo. It's an easy fix, which I'll make when I address a few related items in the very near future. I'll have to defer to @david-waltermire-nist and/or @wendellpiez as to the explanation of why the name can't be identical. I know it's a JSON-only issue and doesn't apply to XML. Count on it being changed to "results-group" |
In this particular case I wonder if we could have |
@wendellpiez I suppose we could if we accepted that a single "result" could have many observations and/or risks. I also see risk if we change "results" to "result", then change "results_group" to "results" because for people who have already implemented, we aren't eliminating "results" we are re-purposing it. So I'd rather change "results_group" to "results-group", but am open to feedback as to whether this concern is unfounded. |
Indeed - after hitting "Comment" yesterday I think I remembered this was at issue. I also think "results" and "result" look very similar, whereas the ideal or perfect grouping name looks enough like the singular name for the relation to be clear, but not so similar that it is confusing. E.g. "properties" as grouping name for "prop". Of the options we have considered so far, I think "results-group" passes this test the best. |
Sorry if I missed the logic…but are we doing this across the board, so a plural will be the singular + “group”? So objectives turns into objectives-group, assets becomes asset-group, test-methods becomes test-methods-group, etc?
My 2 cents is objectives, assets, etc. looks better, and this should be results.
Adam
From: Wendell Piez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 7:09 AM
To: usnistgov/OSCAL <[email protected]>
Cc: Brand, Adam <[email protected]>; Mention <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [usnistgov/OSCAL] results_group naming syntax (#717)
Indeed - after hitting "Comment" yesterday I think I remembered this was at issue. I also think "results" and "result" look very similar, whereas the ideal or perfect grouping name looks enough like the singular name for the relation to be clear, but not so similar that it is confusing. E.g. "properties" as grouping name for "prop". Of the options we have considered so far, I think "results-group" passes this test the best.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#717 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQJXJ65NQ343TXDLLFWEC23SIHS6TANCNFSM4POHJ5TQ>.
…________________________________
CAUTION: This email originated from outside KPMG. Do not click links, open attachments or forward unless you recognize the sender, the sender’s email domain and you know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails as an attachment to US-KPMG SPAM Collection Mailbox ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>).
**********************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
***********************************************************************
|
@adamb-kpmg we are only discussing this change relative to results/results_group, and the standard has been simply the singular/plural (objective/objectives, asset/assets, etc.) I'm sold. The change will be result/results instead of results/results_group unless someone raises a good reason to do otherwise before I get to the change. I have a few other syntax tweaks to make and intend to batch them together, as soon as I get a few other work items addressed. |
@brianrufgsa I think we can explain in docs that "result" can include multiple findings ( As you have also pointed out, there may be house rules governing whether and how risks (and observations) can be grouped. Calling the grouping a single "result" (which enables consolidating all the features common to a group of risks, say) may actually help with that. |
{Please enter your question.}
Is it intentional that assessment-results/results_group:
If not, I propose that this be named results to be consistent with the other names in this structure (e.g., "findings" is a group of "finding" objects). Also propose reviewing naming syntax for collections throughout the schema to align the naming.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: