I read the documentation on active vs owner type accounts:
Authorization and Permissions
Permissions are arbitrary names used to define the requirements for a transaction sent on behalf of that permission. Permissions can be assigned for authority over specific contract actions by "linking authorization" or linkauth.
Every account has two native named permissions
ownerauthority symbolizes ownership of an account. There are only a few transactions that require this authority, but most notably, are actions that make any kind of change to the owner authority. Generally, it is suggested that owner is kept in cold storage and not shared with anyone. owner can be used to recover another permission that may have been compromised.
activeauthority is used for transferring funds, voting for producers and making other high-level account changes. Every permission name has a "parent." Parents possess the authority to change any of the permissions settings for any and all of their children.
In addition to the native permissions, an account can possess custom named permissions that are available to further extend account management. Custom permissions are incredibly flexible and address numerous possible use cases when implemented. Much of this is up to the developer community in how they are employed, and what conventions if any, are adopted.
Custom permissions are arbitrary and impotent until they have been linked to an action.
Permission for any given authority can be assigned to one or multiple public keys or a valid account name.
I still do not understand what its saying. What is a good example of when one should own an active account or a owner type account? Do I need both or do they both come together when I create a public private key pair? Or are they totally separate different private keys?