This is largely a question of the different language used by different communities. People who work with RDBMS and are struggling to integrate data across different databases will talk about Master and Reference Data, and use tools like SQL and ETL. People who use OWL or RDF and Prolog are likely to talk about ontologies, and be looking at performing reasoning across their ontologies. What the ontologies and master data represent is essentially the same thing.
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 2SU.
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Erick Antezana
Sent: 12 February 2015 11:30
Subject: [ontolog-forum] master data vs. ontologies
I need some help to better define the line (sometimes apparently grey) between master data and ontologies.
We all, at least in this forum, know that there are several definitions for both terms.
I guess most of us are familiar with Gruber's one: a formal specification of a shared conceptualization.
In the case of master data:
- 'entities, relationships, and attributes that are critical for an enterprise and foundational to a key business process and application systems'
- 'is the consistent and uniform set of identifiers and extended attributes that describes the core entities of an enterprise'.
What are the key components to differenciate master data and ontologies?
What is common to both artefacts?
From what I have seen, sometimes the border between them seems indeed relatively grey... which seems to be the product of having ontologies as glue components of disparate master data. Also, there seems to be a continuum between them (as in the databases and knowledge base thread in this forum). Anyway, I would appraciate reading your thoughts about it.