Re: RM of [Organizational] Data

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:03:12 +0200
Message-ID: <42625e92$0$150$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Alfredo Novoa wrote:

> mAsterdam wrote:

[mountain man]:

>>>>All other roles apart from I01 (buiness owner(s)) are what
>>>>might be termed custodians (of varying degrees) of the data,
>>>>whereas the actual ownership of the data resolves to the
>>>>owner of the organisation.  Any diasagreements here?
>>>

[Alfredo Novoa]:

>>>A fuzzy statement that leads nowhere.
>>
>>What is your take on the ownership of data?

>
> A data model mathematical formalism for describing data structures and
> operations used to manage data. Who pays the bills is completely
> irrelevant.

Irrelevant to the formalism used, yes. I don't think mountain man is looking to change the formalism. I think mm is trying to raise the subject of 'ownership of data' /using/ the formalism. There is no sense in modelling data which is't valuable to anyone.

[mountain man]:

>>>>Consequently, implicit in any model of the data should be
>>>>the understanding that the data ultimately belongs to the
>>>>business owner.
>>>

[Alfredo Novoa]:
>>>A blatant non sequitur.
[mAsterdam]:

>>Hmm... summary attempt (pls correct me)
>>1. There is ownership of data in various degrees.
>>2. Some role owns in the highest degree.
>>3. The subject matter is business data.
>>4. The business owner ulimately owns the data.
>>
>>There may be some fallacy here, but I don't think it is non sequitur.

>
> I disagree with your summary.
>
> 1. There are custodians of data where custodians might mean many
> different things.

Hardly a summarizing sentence, more a judgement. Which specific consequential ambiguity bothers you?

> 2. The owner the organization is the owner of the data (there are many
> problems here too)..

Indeed. I think (hope) we try to uncover these problems.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The data model must take into account that the business owner is the
> owner of the database
>
> ???
>
> This is like to say that a ballistic model must include parameters to
> take into account who is the owner the bullets.

Not the math of the model, but the usage of a ballistic model should and does take the ownership of the bullets into account, notably also the ownership of the target is relevant. They are called FOF (Friend-or-foe) systems.

>>>Do the readers of the group agree about this is mental masturbation?
>>
>>Actually I think it is a pity that you feel this way, 
>>because it means you won't contribute - assuming you don't 
>>masturbate publicly :-)

>
>
> I don't know if the term means the same everywhere (to publish
> unproductive private crazy thinkings) , but of course I don't want to
> contribute.

Well, I don't know wether mountain man previously discussed this topic with other people, do you? Private: dunno. Crazy: maybe - so what. Unproductive: To early to call IMO.

I am not trying to force you into joining the thread (you already did). Discussions on the relevance of topics are fine. However, please don't dismiss a topic just because it is not your personal favourite. OTOH if you experienced counterproductivity from discussing 'ownership of data' I would appreciate it if you told us about it. Received on Sun Apr 17 2005 - 08:03:12 CDT