Master and Reference Data is the data that is (or should be) common to multiple systems so that data from those systems can be easily integrated. Those that distinguish between Master and Reference data would have things like customers, suppliers, and products as master data and things like colours, units of measure, and status types as reference data.
I first got involved with this stuff in the early nineties, when (in Shell) we noticed how difficult and expensive it was to map between systems where there were arbitrary differences in the way these things were represented and identified, and concluded it would be cheaper over the long term to use the same data across the different systems. We called it Reference Data, (and ISO 15926 has a Reference Data Library) but later Master Data gained more currency.
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: 13 February 2015 13:20
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] master data vs. ontologies
many thanks for your thoughts!
@Alex: agree to some extend with 'we need programmer to work with data and mathematician to work with ontology'. We still need the domain specialists (e.g. life scientist in my case). Also, it depends on the type of work, I could proabably create a sound ontology and "connect" some master data to it; however, without the proper domain knowledge I will never exploit that system to its maximun...
@Kingsley: I totally agree that MDM initiatives poorly invest on semantics. However, I cannot imagine a de-silo-fication without a 'semantic/ontolgical' approach. Could you elaborate on the 'holistic' aspect you mention?
@John: you said that the critical disctintion is between logic and ontology. What would be the counterpart for master data? Would logic be a a foreign (or unsual) component to master data? MD relies on constraints, which in principle have some logic...
@Jack: I will argue that MDM systems are still localized. I am currently dealing with some that have to ensure the consistency of naming thru the whole research and development phases as well as production, regulatory affairs/compliance, ... so the link to the extramural world is actual.
@Matthew: how do you define Master and Reference Data?
@David: have started defining/working on the ontologies or MD? or have you invested time on both at the same time? how do you glue them?
does anybody recomend a book or conferences where these things are confronted?
On 13 February 2015 at 08:02, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx> wrote:
That deserves an "Amen, Brother!" from me ... :-)
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:29 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear David and Steven,
Re the word 'mathematician': I used it only because I was repeating
the word that Alex had used. The question about word usage is
irrelevant to the matter.
> The confusion came from holding truth to be something in the world.
I agree that truth always involves language, either a natural
language or some version of logic.
> Engineering is a fine profession and there is no shame in using the term
The idea of a value judgment that puts philosophers above people who
actually work for a living comes from Plato. It was fueled by the fact
that only people who were independently wealthy could afford to spend
time debating metaphysics. And it is reinforced by academics who want
an excuse for not being wealthy.
Aristotle was somewhat more balanced, since his father was a physician
who had to do empirical studies and messy work in treating sick people.
In any case, there are a lot of engineers who are as smart or smarter
than many so-called scientists.
In 19th c England, scientists were expected to be independently
wealthy. Faraday was barred from the Royal Society because he had
to work for a living.
I have no sympathy for that attitude.
> At which point does engineering become science?
Never! Computer science, for example, is a branch of engineering
in most universities. Anybody who writes a patent is an engineer.
The amount of mathematics they know or use is irrelevant.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J