2 Responses to Data Transparency and Data Governance

  1. justin says:

    not sure where you’re going with this – the column names seem pretty self-explanatory to me to anyone with a data background – are you saying you don’t think this data should be made public without a data dictionary? or without an actual license agreement or something?

  2. David Loshin says:

    This is just a small example, but the idea is there: the producer may have some understanding of the intent of the data element when the data set is “carved out” for publication, but without any formal metadata providing definitions and standards, anyone can reinterpret the intent of the attribute any way they like.

    Your comment sort of proves the point: you say that “the column names seem pretty self-explanatory…” I could therefore draw the conclusion that if a column name seems self-explanatory, then no explanation is needed. OK, so it seems self-explanatory to you, as it does to me, as it does to many other people. Now let’s get 100 of us together and document our explanation for the field. I suspect there might be some differences in those definitions.

    Next, where are the barriers? One vector looks at the pool of consumers (“it seems self-explanatory to you, but not to me” because you have more subject matter expertise), and another looks at the content (what does “account” mean?), especially out of context. And since the producers are manufacturing a *version* of the data from their internal systems, they are injecting an interpretation as to what can be inferred from column name.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>