Re: [Codematch-develop] Codematch Call Wed 13 May

Christian O'Flaherty <oflaherty@isoc.org> Fri, 15 May 2015 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <oflaherty@isoc.org>
X-Original-To: codematch-develop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codematch-develop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D77D1A1AC1 for <codematch-develop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 09:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h1t1KM1vFNt1 for <codematch-develop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 09:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0097.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 268961A1A9B for <codematch-develop@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2015 09:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: inf.ufrgs.br; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
Received: from 87-7-200.lacnic.net.uy (200.7.87.60) by BLUPR0601MB770.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.254.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.148.16; Fri, 15 May 2015 16:09:13 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Christian O'Flaherty <oflaherty@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <FE67D16B-9470-4112-9771-CD55E0FBA4ED@inf.ufrgs.br>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:09:08 -0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <68AD0385-67E5-4790-9379-88A669BAFA96@isoc.org>
References: <19942DC7-3CB3-4644-A093-7631F32CDCA6@isoc.org> <FE67D16B-9470-4112-9771-CD55E0FBA4ED@inf.ufrgs.br>
To: Lisandro Zambenedetti Granville <granville@inf.ufrgs.br>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Originating-IP: [200.7.87.60]
X-ClientProxiedBy: BN1PR02CA0015.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.141.56.15) To BLUPR0601MB770.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.254.139)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR0601MB770;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <BLUPR0601MB770588245F36F24CD6100EDCEC70@BLUPR0601MB770.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(3002001); SRVR:BLUPR0601MB770; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR0601MB770;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0577AD41D6
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(51704005)(77096005)(50226001)(189998001)(5001960100002)(110136002)(82746002)(50986999)(76176999)(19580395003)(83716003)(46102003)(47776003)(66066001)(86362001)(23676002)(42186005)(53416004)(87976001)(33656002)(77156002)(62966003)(36756003)(92566002)(40100003)(2950100001)(50466002)(122386002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0601MB770; H:87-7-200.lacnic.net.uy; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2015 16:09:13.9684 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0601MB770
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/codematch-develop/LkcXlaBINqTN-2qXnEV2xge0QYk>
Cc: codematch-develop <codematch-develop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Codematch-develop] Codematch Call Wed 13 May
X-BeenThere: codematch-develop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Discussion forum for the planning, coordination, and development of CodeMatch\"" <codematch-develop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codematch-develop>, <mailto:codematch-develop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codematch-develop/>
List-Post: <mailto:codematch-develop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codematch-develop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codematch-develop>, <mailto:codematch-develop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 16:09:19 -0000

Hi Lisandro, 

> 
> I incorporated the modifications in the data model. However, I have the following comments:
> 
>> Add to Codematch table: Creation_date
> 
> There’s no Codematch table. I believe you meant Project Container

On our previous call we decided to change the name to the table that was called “Match”
I thought the name you suggested for that table was Codematch 

Is it “Project_Container” the new name for that main table in the middle of the data model?

>> Add Projects table: Reputation
> 
> Done.
> 
>> Change the table name from Specification to Document
> 
> Done.
> 
>> Remove Area from Codematch table
> 
> Done, from the Project Container as above.

I assume we’re talking about the same table

> 
>> The relationship between Projects and Codematch should be many to many
> 
> I didn’t do it yet because I wanted to double-check. To do so, let me “tell” the story of this version.
> 
> - A “Code Project” describes a project owned/run by a single user. Each user, however, can be the coder of many project.

ok

> - A “Project Container” is a collection of Code Projects. Each container hosts several projects, but each project is linked to a single container. I believe this is where you asked for a many to many relationship, but I think 1 to many is more correct, I guess. 

I think there are cases where a single project (code) has to use definitions described in more than one document. For example, if you would like to implement and test the current proposals for BGPSEC you will “use" for your code several drafts.

> - A “Project Container” is linked to zero or more documents. Each Document is linked to zero or one container

In the current implementation, the relationship is: A “Project Container” is linked to one document.

I think we should always have at least one document linked.

I’m not sure if we need more than one document linked from the container. I thought the best way to capture the fact that an implementation needed more than one document was on the “Code Project” table referring to several “Project Containers". But I can easily change that if needed.  

Christian

> - A “CodeRequest” is an extended container, adding estimated LoE information. 
> 
> 
> 
> <codematchv5.png>
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Lisandro
>