Re: RM of [Organizational] Data

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1113680567.459729.142780_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> mountain man wrote:
>> The issue of the ownership of data is possibly worth exploring.
>> Here we are restricting consideration to data held in a database.

...[trim]...

>> Consequently, implicit in any model of the data should be
>> the understanding that the data ultimately belongs to the
>> business owner.
>
> To be precise, the data are owned by an "organization" (or individual
> as you mention below) -- not every organization is a business.

You are of course correct, and I was not sufficiently general. Every organisation though, will have an owner or a "custodian" who acts as the owner of that organisation (wrt the data).

This trail of "ownership" does not end at the organisation but at the owner of that organisation.

> Additionally, this is the organization who owns the data we are
> referring to (thus making it true by definition) and not necessarily
> the licensee of a database tool or the disk on which the data are
> stored.

Yes, I think we agree here. I have seen a number of instances over time where over-zealous software developers lay claim to the ownership of data because it is being written to the dbms by means of their (application level) code.

I set them straight. ;-)

> In other words, one organization might host a database of
> another organization's data.

Yes. Again, you'd expect certain contractual agreements that relate the ownership of the data to exist between these two organisations, such that --- perhaps --- the hosting organisation acts as the custodian of the data for the other.

>> Thus, implied in the phrase "RM of the data" is the
>> expanded form "RM of organisational data",
>
> or "model of an organization's data".
>
>> because
>> data is always associated with an organisation (treating
>> an individual as a minimal organisation) without
>> exception.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> Do you agree with this assessment?
>
> Sure, with the variations on your terms above. Where are you headed
> with this?

I guess I am trying to understand how other people approach these issues, and am gathering different perspectives from the field.

>What pops into my mind is the point that data and the
> associated model of the data are not separate from their use.

They should not be too far removed, else the model will never be used in the field. ;-)

> There is
> not some ultimate model of data (as some might claim of "the relational
> model" of said data), but models that help organizations do their work.

Absolutely correct dawn.

Moreover, that any model be reserved only for some form of theoretical pre-implementation modelling phase is a totally and absolutely ludicrous suggestion for the following reason.

Change management is a process of re-implementation: a model should be a living and breathing essence that is of assistance to many aspects of database management systems on a daily basis.

> I'm curious where you are going with this. Cheers! --dawn

So am I! ;-)

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au Received on Sun Apr 17 2005 - 05:06:42 CEST