Why Data belongs up there with
Information and Knowledge
I have just finished re-reading [ Conrad Taylor’s ]
position paper. Let me tell you why I want to see Data in our
‘super group’ title as well as Information and Knowledge!
The DMSG has interests in the following areas, as
reflected in publications by the Group and its members
over the last twenty years:
- Data about Data — Metadata
- Data about Metadata — Meta-Metadata
- Data Modelling (Corporate and Project-based)
- Data Security (CIA)
- Data Protection Legislation
- Database Management Systems
- Database Design and Administration
- Data Dictionary systems
- Data Quality
- Data Warehousing/Business Intelligence
- Data Ownership
- Data Storage technologies
- Data Capture
- Data Visualisation
- Data Interchange standards
- Data Architecture
- Data-driven System Development Approaches
- Data-related Business Rules
- Data naming conventions — homonym and synonym avoidance
- Data in non-structured forms; text, static and moving image, geographic, audio
- Data Mining for Patterns
- Data Distribution strategies
- Data Management qualifications, certifications and roles
plus...
- ISO SQL standards
- XML
- Object and Class Modelling
- Ontology
- The Semantic Web
- Freedom of Information
- Knowledge Management
- Document Management
I think you will see my drift — although the last
few show we are not entirely blinkered!
I agree that we could argue forever about whether
information is a better word for a lot of the above
industry standard uses of the word data.
We like to think of information being obtained from
‘raw’ data by giving that data context –
via metadata. As for knowledge, this is often seen as
being obtained by applying processes to information,
such as comparisons and predictions; but I agree there
is a lot to be done in clarification here.
I would love the ‘super’ SG to start with a debate
about stamping an official BCS view on data, information,
knowledge, metadata etc. that we can all live with and
propagate widely.
Tony Jenkins, Data Management SG
|
