Lists Home |
Date Index |
The only way that standard data vocabularies (or 'interchangeable' data
structures of any sort) offer for doing that is to bisect the
silo horizontally with a common vocabulary, precisely so that those who
collect the data are factored away from those who analyze and report it.
Or are you suggesting by 'stakeholder management' a constellation of
out-of-vocabulary agreements and constraints, intended to insure the
compliance of the data collected with the specific criteria of each
expert group of users? And if so is this not a new silo, only most
All great points. That is exactly what I am suggesting - that is, having
a "core data set" that is used horizontally by all stakeholders (for
example, a set of government agencies), and various "non-core data sets"
for the specific needs of stakeholders. Using a component-based
approach, schemas can be "assembled" by each stakeholder using both the
core and non-core datasets. This approach allows the largest effort at
interoperability (or "interchangeability" as you term it), while still
allowing the flexibility for each individual stakeholder (organization,
agency, etc.) to have their precise needs covered.
This approach is tested, proven, and is working.
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
"W. E. Perry" wrote:
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> > Of course - but this assumes that there has been no stakeholder management, and that the data has been
> > collected in a vacuum by a select few. It also assumes that there is no documentation provided with
> > the data as to its meaning, origin, etc. If those things are done I think a different picture emerges.
> Unfortunately, precisely this is the inevitable risk of 'interchangeable' parts, where those parts are
> data structures. The data silos were built in the first place because the expertise in a process which
> went from data collection through analysis to reporting was presumed to be monolithic. Then along come
> those who want the data repurposed and the silos broken down. The only way that standard data
> vocabularies (or 'interchangeable' data structures of any sort) offer for doing that is to bisect the
> silo horizontally with a common vocabulary, precisely so that those who collect the data are factored
> away from those who analyze and report it. At that point, the practical effect of no one's expertise can
> be greater than the common denominator vocabulary which is the only nexus between collection and use of
> the data, and by design the only means of expressing the 'contract' between the collectors and the users
> of the data. Or are you suggesting by 'stakeholder management' a constellation of out-of-vocabulary
> agreements and constraints, intended to insure the compliance of the data collected with the specific
> criteria of each expert group of users? And if so is this not a new silo, only most inefficiently
> realized? Or perhaps you are suggesting that the original raw data be reviewed against the expression
> given to it in the standard vocabulary and those audit results (stated, presumably, in a standard
> vocabulary of their own) be forced to accompany the first instantiation of the data everywhere it goes,
> so that users with more finicky standards can use that audit data to recalibrate the first statement of
> the data before they process it? And so it goes.
> Breaking down the silos is simply a problem which cannot be remedied with standard vocabularies or other
> interchangeable parts. In fact, put to that use standard vocabularies are the most efficient tools of
> deception and fraud.
> Walter Perry
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano