evolving your semantics: feedback between data projects ... · evolving your semantics: feedback...
TRANSCRIPT
Evolving your semantics:Feedback between data projectsand the corporate standard
John Jordanis a senior data analyst in the Siemens Business Services’ Media Data Consultancy. He is a senior member of the team
providing a data management service to the BBC and has just lead the media asset management strand of a project
implementing an end-to-end production, playout and archiving system in the BBC World Service.
Keywords: digital asset management (DAM), data analysis, data management,
corporate semantic standard, system development
Abstract Paradoxically, in the current rapidly changing business environment it has
never been more important to maintain a standard view of the meaning of the
business data within an organization. Only with a common corporate understanding of
the semantics of the data can the organization hope to develop the interoperating
systems environment which will maximize the value of their assets and minimize the
effort required to use them. Maintaining the shared semantics within an agile
organization in a rapidly changing business environment is complex and this paper
describes a method for doing just that. It will also outline the value of the corporate
model, how it is used, derived and maintained, and the value and role of projects in
this activity.
THE IMPORTANCE OF DATAUnless an organization knows what itsassets are, where they are, what they cando with them and how much that willcost, it cannot do business effectively.The metadata underlying thisinformation are, increasingly, beingshared across the organization —databases are no longer merely theprovince of the team that createdthem.As the data gain wider currency it
becomes crucial that we have acommon, pan-organizationunderstanding of what that data actuallymean — the organization needs asemantic standard.
THE VALUE OF A SEMANTICSTANDARDThis paper describes a general approachto the development and evolution of acorporate data standard. The methodsand processes described are informed bythe activities of an outsourced data teamworking for the British BroadcastingCorporation (BBC) to provide a datamanagement service known as the DataIntegration Service (DIS). One of thecomponent parts of the DIS is themaintenance of the BBC’s corporatesemantic model.The DIS data team takes an approach
which uses the existing business systemdevelopment projects to enhance and
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT Vol. 1, 6 386–398 # Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005)386
John JordanSenior Data AnalystSiemens BusinessServicesG201 Stadium House68 Wood LaneLondon W12 7TAUKTel: +44 (0) 7739920023Fax: +44 (0) 20 85763029Email:[email protected]
renew the corporate standard. Thisproject-based approach ensures that thecorporate standard evolves in the samedirection and at the same rate as thebusiness: ensuring systeminteroperability and supporting thechosen commercial strategy.As, in general, these activities require
that an organization has both the will toimpose a corporate standard and theresource to develop and maintain thestandard, it is best to state clearly whythe organization is doing this.This can be done quite simply — the
goal is to gain business benefit byenabling media asset management:
. simplifying asset exchange and reuse;
. enabling information sharing by
breaking down data silos;
. informing the provision of systems
which are fit for purpose — no matter
whether they’re developed in-house,
purchased packages, or leased services.
WHAT FORMAT DOES THESTANDARD TAKE?The core of the data team’s activity isthe development and maintenanceof the corporate semantic data model(CSDM). This model represents anddefines the meaning of things ofinterest to the business and of thebusiness rules which link them.Examples of these things in abroadcasting environment wouldinclude programs, playlist items,transmissions, contributors, rights, etc.This model can be presented in a
variety of ways but, for ease ofmaintenance, it should be managed in acomputer aided software engineering(CASE) tool. The tool, in general, willlimit the presentation of the model toone or other of two styles — entity
relationship diagrams (ERD) and classmodels in unified modeling language(UML). More advanced tools will allowthe generation of XML schemas fromselected areas of the model.It is worth stressing that, for the
purposes of the corporate semanticmodel, the style of presentation (ERDvs UML) is one of mere preference. Thepoint is the clear and unambiguousrepresentation of the meaning to thebusiness of the data and of therelationships between the data.Figure 1 provides an example of one
of the ERDs used to represent theBBC’s corporate semantic model1 — theBBC Standard Media ExchangeFramework, SMEFTM. The blocks(entities) represent the objects of interestto the business and the lines betweenthem, the business relationships. Eachentity has a number of named dataattributes which represent those of theobject’s properties which are of interestto the business.The colored entities contain reference
data and are candidates for the datateam’s reference data managementactivities. We will mention referencedata later but, here, it is sufficient to notethat the CSDM can be used to bringtogether several strands of theorganization’s data managementactivities.The simplest way of representing the
data structures and relationships isgraphically, but the definitions arecommunicated in a data dictionary. Thedata dictionary is associated with thefigures and contains a detailed definitionof every data element — entities,attributes and, increasingly, relationships.Figure 2 is an example of a datadictionary entry for one of the SMEFTM
entities on the ERD. Each entity is
Evolving your semantics
# Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005) Vol. 1, 6 386–398 JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT 387
CO
MM
ISS
ION
ING
(E
ntity
Rel
atio
n S
ubje
ct A
rea)
SA
/200
1Fr
i May
14,
200
4 1
7:01
Com
men
t
SM
EF
Ver
sion
1.1
0
Dia
gram
5 o
f 8
Cop
yrig
ht 2
004:
Brit
ish
Bro
adca
stin
g C
orpo
ratio
n. A
ll rig
hts
rese
rved
.
Con
fiden
tial a
nd p
ropr
ieta
ry in
form
atio
n of
the
Brit
ish
Bro
adca
stin
g C
orpo
ratio
n.A
utho
rs:
BB
C T
echn
olog
y, M
edia
Dat
a G
roup
Con
tact
e-m
ail:
sm
ef@
bbc.
co.u
k
ED
ITO
RIA
L_O
BJE
CT
_VE
RS
ION
Prim
ary
Key
EO
V_I
dent
ifier
[P
K1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
EO
V_C
reat
ion_
Dat
eE
OV
_Dur
atio
n
EO
V_C
olou
r_In
dica
tor
EO
V_T
itle
EO
V_W
orki
ng_T
itle
EO
V_L
ast_
Wor
ds_S
eque
nce_
Des
c
EO
V_F
irst_
Wor
ds_S
eque
nce_
Des
cE
OV
_Sus
pend
ed_D
ate
EO
V_N
CS
_Slu
g_Ty
pe
EO
V_N
CS
_Slu
g_N
ame
EO
V_S
ub_T
itle
EO
V_E
nd_o
f_S
peec
h_D
urat
ion
EO
V_I
n-V
isio
n_S
ubtit
les_
Indi
cato
r
EO
V_O
rigin
al_B
road
cast
_Des
crip
tion
EO
V_H
ired_
She
et_M
usic
_Ind
icat
or
EO
V_P
rodu
ctio
n_E
nd_D
ate
EO
V_P
rodu
ctio
n_S
tart
_Dat
e
BR
IEF
Prim
ary
Key
BR
I_N
umbe
r [
PK
1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
BR
I_F
inan
cial
_Yea
r
BR
I_E
dito
rial_
Info
rmat
ion_
Des
crip
tion
BR
I_P
rogr
amm
e_Q
uant
ity
BR
I_C
ateg
ory_
Des
crip
tion
BR
I_R
equi
red_
Dur
atio
n
BR
I_S
lot_
Day
_Nam
eB
RI_
Slo
t_D
ay_C
ode
BR
I_S
lot_
Sta
rt_T
ime
BR
I_S
lot_
Cod
e
BR
I_Ta
rget
_Am
ount
BR
I_T
itle
BR
I_E
arlie
st_P
ossi
ble_
Pub
licat
ion_
Dat
e
RO
LE
Prim
ary
Key
RO
L_Id
entif
ier
[P
K1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
RO
L_B
illin
g_N
ame
RO
L_B
illin
g_P
riorit
y_C
ount
RO
L_S
tar_
Indi
cato
r
RO
L_S
tart
_Dat
e
RO
L_E
nd_C
redi
t_In
dica
tor
RO
L_E
nd_D
ate
RO
L_E
xtra
ct_F
ee_I
ndic
ator
RO
L_N
ot_U
sed_
Indi
cato
r
RO
L_O
ut_O
f_V
isio
n_In
dica
tor
OF
FE
R
Prim
ary
Key
OF
F_I
dent
ifier
[P
K1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
OF
F_A
mou
ntO
FF
_Ave
rage
_Dur
atio
n
OF
F_D
eliv
ery_
Dat
eO
FF
_Slo
t_C
ode
OF
F_S
lot_
Day
_Cod
eO
FF
_Slo
t_D
ay_N
ame
OF
F_S
lot_
Sta
rt_T
ime
OF
F_T
itle
ED
ITO
RIA
L_O
BJE
CT
_GR
OU
P
Prim
ary
Key
EO
G_I
dent
ifier
[P
K1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
EO
G_T
itle
EO
G_S
ub_T
itle
EO
G_S
erie
s_N
umbe
r
EO
G_I
SA
N_R
oot_
Iden
tifie
rE
OG
_Des
crip
tion
EO
G_B
AR
B_P
AS
_Num
ber
EO
G_P
rogr
amm
e_N
umbe
r
EO
G_E
piso
de_Q
uant
ityE
OG
_Wor
king
_Titl
e
PR
OG
RA
MM
E_C
LAS
SIF
ICAT
ION
_TY
PE
Prim
ary
Key
PC
L_C
ode
[P
K1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
PC
L_T
itle
PC
L_E
ffect
ive_
From
_Dat
eP
CL_
Effe
ctiv
e_To
_Dat
e
PE
RS
ON
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
PE
R_F
irst_
Nam
eP
ER
_Mid
dle_
Nam
e
PE
R_L
ast_
Nam
eP
ER
_Sal
utat
ion_
Sho
rt_F
orm
PE
R_S
uffix
_Nam
eP
ER
_Des
crip
tion
PE
R_P
rese
nter
_Rea
d_R
ate
CO
MM
ISS
ION
ED
_PR
OJE
CT
Prim
ary
Key
PR
J_Id
entif
ier
[P
K1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
PR
J_T
itle
PR
J_D
escr
iptio
nP
RJ_
Exp
ecte
d_E
nd_D
ate
PR
J_E
xpec
ted_
Sta
rt_D
ate
PR
J_W
orki
ng_T
itle
OF
FE
R_T
YP
E
Prim
ary
Key
OT
Y_C
ode
[P
K1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
OT
Y_D
escr
iptio
n
OT
Y_N
ame
OT
Y_E
ffect
ive_
From
_Dat
e
OT
Y_E
ffect
ive_
To_D
ate
OU
TLE
T
Prim
ary
Key
OU
T_C
ode
[P
K1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
OU
T_N
ame
OU
T_D
escr
iptio
nO
UT
_Effe
ctiv
e_Fr
om_D
ate
OU
T_E
ffect
ive_
To_D
ate
CU
RR
EN
CY
_TY
PE
Prim
ary
Key
CU
R_C
urre
ncy_
Cod
e [
PK
1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
CU
R_D
escr
iptio
nC
UR
_Effe
ctiv
e_Fr
om_D
ate
CU
R_E
ffect
ive_
To_D
ate
RO
LE_T
YP
E
Prim
ary
Key
RO
T_C
ode
[P
K1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
RO
T_T
itle
RO
T_E
ffect
ive_
From
_Dat
eR
OT
_Effe
ctiv
e_To
_Dat
e
ED
ITO
RIA
L_O
BJE
CT
_CO
NC
EP
T
Prim
ary
Key
EO
C_I
dent
ifier
[P
K1]
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
EO
C_T
itle
OR
GA
NIS
ATIO
N
Non
-Key
Attr
ibut
es
OR
G_N
ame
BR
IEF
_LIN
K_E
OC
_EX
AM
PLE
BR
IEF
_LIN
K_E
OV
_EX
AM
PLE
PAR
TY
Prim
ary
Key
PAR
_Ide
ntifi
er
[PK
1]
OF
FE
R_L
INK
_OU
TLE
T
BR
IEF
_LIN
K_O
UT
LET
PC
L_LI
NK
_BR
IEF
PC
L_LI
NK
_OF
FE
R
OF
FE
R_L
INK
_OB
JEC
T
linke
d to
Out
lets
via
the
link
for
poin
ting
to e
xam
ple
Edi
toria
l Obj
ect G
roup
s vi
a
for
b
part
icip
ant i
n
assu
med
dire
ctly
by
afu
lfilli
ng
of
orig
inat
or o
f
the
resu
lt of
split
into
owne
d by
spec
ifier
of fo
r
spec
ified
as
exam
ples
in B
riefs
via
for
for
of
fulfi
lled
by
for
poin
ting
to e
xam
ples
via
for
a
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
a
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
a
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
a
asso
ciat
ed w
ithas
soci
ated
to
a
linke
d vi
a
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
a
subj
ect o
f
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
for
desc
ribed
by
a
fulfi
lling
of
afulfi
lling
of
auth
ority
for
for
for
of
spec
ifier
of
for
linke
d to
Brie
f via
the
link
for
linke
d to
Out
lets
via
the
link
for
resu
lting
in
resu
lt of
desc
riptio
n fo
ras
soci
ated
with
spec
ified
as
for
spec
ifier
of
for
for
reci
pien
t of
iden
tifyi
ng s
erie
s fo
r
iden
tifie
d by
cite
d in
for
Figure
1:Example
ofanERD
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT Vol. 1, 6 386–398 # Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005)388
Jordan
described in terms that include businessexamples where possible.One of the strengths of the semantic
approach is that it allows the datamanagement team to remaintechnology-agnostic and for theindividual projects to select theimplementation technology which fitstheir situation best.A final point when considering the
representation of the model is that itshould be appropriate to the situation.It is sometimes forgotten, but everymodel can be expressed at differentlevels of precision2 and taking a highlydetailed model, intended for a technical
audience, into a general business user-group meeting can becounterproductive.
HOW THE STANDARDPROVIDES VALUEThe thinking behind the standard isquite simple — effective sharing ofinformation requires that we have acommon understanding of what dataitems mean. If different businesscommunities understand data to meandifferent things then the data are, at best,useless and, at worst, dangerous.Using a well accepted definition of an
asset as: Asset = Content + Metadata3 it
Figure 2: Example of a data dictionary entry
Evolving your semantics
# Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005) Vol. 1, 6 386–398 JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT 389
becomes clear that unreliable metadatatransform an asset into a liability.For the purposes of this paper, the
terms data and metadata will be usedinterchangeably to mean the same thing.The metadata to be managed willinclude the data structures of businesssystems, descriptive data (both editorialand physical) about media assets andcorporate reference data sets. Referencedata may be defined as any kind of dataused to categorize other data found in adatabase or for relating data in adatabase to information beyond theboundaries of a particular system or theenterprise.4 Examples of corporatereference data will include thedescriptive taxonomies used within anorganization to classify their assets:examples of taxonomies would includecatalog indexing terms and contentgenres.The development of a shared,
semantics-based data architecture willallow effective inter-systemcommunication, the development of acorporate approach to the
implementation of external datastandards such as television Anytime andP-Meta, and the adoption of a pan-systems approach to integration.This paper will concentrate on the
management of the business systems’data architecture rather than on themaintenance of taxonomies.
THE STANDARD AS ASEMANTIC BUSAn increasingly common example of apan-systems integration architecture isthe use of middleware-enabled webservices within organizations. Thedevelopment of shared exchangemessages is a prerequisite for theimplementation of a services orientedarchitecture (SOA).Within such an environment, the
corporate standard acts as a semantic bus— a common communication layer usedand understood by the systems withinthe organization. Thus, developers cando away with individually developedpoint to point interfaces and replacethem with agreed exchanges through the
Point to point
System 1 System 2
System 4System 3
Point to point
System 1 System 2
System 4System 3
System 1 System 2
System 4System 3
System 1 System 2
System 4System 3
Via a standard
System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4
Corporate Semantic Model
MAPPING
Via a standard
System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4
Corporate Semantic Model
MAPPING
System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4
Corporate Semantic Model
MAPPING
Figure 3: Point-to-point or standards enabled interfaces
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT Vol. 1, 6 386–398 # Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005)390
Jordan
medium of the common data standard(Figure 3). This allows independentdevelopment of specific individualsystems within the organization bysimplifying system integration.
WHO MANAGESTHE STANDARD?The team that manages the standardneed not be large. Small organizations,with a relatively specialized business,don’t need a team as large as thatrequired by a national or internationalradio and television broadcaster with alarge web presence. A data team can beas small as a single person.Management of the corporate
semantic standard will be one of severalfunctions that the group provides.Other, related functions could include:
. Setting up the business organization and
processes to enable the organization to
manage its reference data efficiently: for
example, avoiding divergence of
meaning within the corporate reference
data and maintaining its integrity —
supporting data sharing.
. Defining and managing data stewardship
policies: data stewardship can be defined
as being accountable for the definition of
the quality of a set of data such that it
supports all required uses by the
organization. Data stewardship means
also being responsible for the delivered
level of data quality. It is about the
quality of corporate data and not, for
example, how or where it is stored.
. Managing the corporate exchange
model: providing a model and
supporting specifications of the actual
messages and interfaces used to exchange
data within the organization.
As can be seen from the examples of thetasks performed by the data
management team, the aim of theiractivities is to increase data sharing, dataquality and data reliability across theorganization. The team will becomposed of data analysts and architectsand can be provided internally from thecompany or can be an outsourcedservice working under a service levelagreement.An organization of the size and
complexity of the BBC would requireabout eight full-time staff to maintainthe entire DIS activity. Of this team,some two and a half are sufficient tomaintain the corporate semanticstandard and carry out the projectmapping and compliance activities. Thesame level of activity could be carriedout in a smaller organization by aproportionately smaller team.
BUSINESS DIRECTION:GOVERNANCE, TECHNICALSTRATEGY AND ADATA CHARTERFor any corporate data standard to besuccessful, it is critical that theorganization impose a system ofgovernance upon the design and use ofits data. No matter whether the datamanagement team are in-house oroutsourced, in order for their activitiesto be effective they must work to asenior technical strategy group withinthe client organization. The reasons forthis are related to the two organizationrequirements we mentioned at thebeginning of this paper — the will toimpose a corporate standard and theresource to maintain it.By taking the role of customer for the
data management service, theorganization’s technical strategy groupindicates that the service is a corporatepolicy with high-level support. The data
Evolving your semantics
# Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005) Vol. 1, 6 386–398 JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT 391
management team’s role should be statedand defined by the publication of a datacharter. This data charter, adopted byresolution of the management board,should establish the rationale and contextfor the development and delivery of thepan-organization approach to dataintegration. It should set out how this isto be delivered, who is involved, whatthey will produce and how it will bemanaged.The second main reason for working
to a senior technical strategy group isthat the data management team iscertain to be resource-limited and willbe unable to work with all the systemsunder development within theorganization. Because of this, it is crucialthat the business’ technical strategygroup should identify the high prioritydevelopments for the attentions of thedata management team.One method, commonly used to
impose governance upon anorganization’s data, is for all systemdevelopment projects over a specifiedsize to be referred to the technicalstrategy group for review and appraisal.When selecting projects for complianceto the corporate model, the groupwould have a clearly defined remit:
. to minimize technical investment costs
across the organization;
. to ensure the investment provides best
value for money;
. to ensure the investment is in line with
the organization’s published technical
strategy;
. to mandate that any development project
will comply with organizational
technical standards and policies.
In essence, the technical strategy groupensures that projects of strategic value to
the organization are delivered in aconsistent and cost effective manner.It must be stressed that this is not just
an academic technical exercise — itcannot be forgotten that the technicalstrategy group is, essentially,representing the business and the goal isthe procurement of technology to fitwith business strategy and to gainbusiness benefit.By giving the technical strategy group
the authority to mandate compliance tothe corporate data standard as aprerequisite for funding, we can ensurethat the corporate data standard will bepresent in all the major strategicdevelopments. It should also beremarked that compliance to thecorporate standard in selected strategicsystems has a noticeable cascade effect,moving compliance, informally, intoprojects not specifically selected forcompliance.
WHAT IS THE ROLEOF PROJECTS?At their best, projects represent themovement of the business in thedirection the business strategy haschosen. By working with projects, thedata management team has the ability toinfluence the development of the systemenvironment for the future. Settingmodeling directions to achievecompliance during the project analysisphase — avoiding re-work and retro-fitting — minimizes overhead to thebusiness.The project team should not slavishly
adopt the corporate model — they mustcarry out additional analysis. Thisadditional analysis will test the corporatemodel against reality — giving usincreased confidence in the corporatestandard.
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT Vol. 1, 6 386–398 # Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005)392
Jordan
The project analysis is the primesource of accurate business definitionsfor the data structures and relationshipsas they are used within the scope of theproject.A point which shouldn’t be
underestimated is the political value ofworking with the business during theproject and using the business to enhanceand develop the corporate standard. Ifthis is handled well it can foster a senseof ‘‘ownership’’ within the business asthey see their understanding reflectedback into the standard.
HOW DOES THE DATA TEAMWORK WITH PROJECTS?It is hugely important that thecompliance process should have aminimal negative impact upon theproject. To this end, although theproject will fund its own projectanalysis, the compliance exercise can befunded centrally. A useful way tosimplify the compliance reviews is forthe project to employ one of the datateam as a project data analyst and for thesame data team member to carry out the
compliance mappings and reviews.After a project has been selected for
compliance a member of the data teamwill meet with the project manager toagree a modeling approach and thereview timetable. The selection of thecompliance sign-off points will betailored to the development methodused. Figure 4 illustrates a fairly standardproject lifecycle comprising four phases:inception, elaboration, construction andtransition. The middle row containsexamples of the sort of projectdocumentation we would expect to seegenerated at each stage. The bottomrow gives examples of the points atwhich it would be natural for the datateam to schedule compliance reviews.The scheduling of compliance reviews
at each of the points illustrated inFigure 4 would be severe overkill for allbut the largest and most complexprojects and would probably beconstrued as harassment. As a minimum,however, we would expect the project’sstatement of data requirements to becompliant with the corporate standardand then to have a further review stage
Data Management review
Metadata Management
review
PIR
Scope review Data Model reviewData Architecture reviewSystem Interfaces review
Design review
Data Management review
Metadata Management
review
PIR
Scope review Data Model reviewData Architecture reviewSystem Interfaces review
Design review
CONSTRUCTION TRANSITIONINCEPTION ELABORATION CONSTRUCTION TRANSITIONINCEPTION ELABORATION
Database DesignProgramme
DocumentationTesting products
Deployment Products
Live systemEnhancement requirements
Scope documentsProject strategy
Business CaseProcess Diagrams
Use CasesProject Data Model
Interface Statements
Database DesignProgram
DocumentationTesting products
Deployment Products
Live systemEnhancement requirements
Scope documentsProject strategy
Business CaseProcess Diagrams
Use CasesProject Data Model
Interface Statements
Figure 4: Example project lifecycle
Evolving your semantics
# Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005) Vol. 1, 6 386–398 JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT 393
at the end of the construction phase toensure that the delivered system meetsthe stated requirements.It is also recommended that, when the
project has been delivered, and thesystem moves into the maintenance andenhancement phase (not illustrated),further routine compliance meetings arescheduled in order to ensure that thesystem’s compliance to the corporatestandard is not threatened bymaintenance modifications. Thesecompliance meetings need not bescheduled in the sense of setting a datebut can be made part of the system’sconfiguration management approach.Although the example of the project
lifecycle in Figure 4 is for a softwaredevelopment project, it is possible toapply the principles to both packagepurchase schemes and leased services. Ineach of these cases the requirement neednot be for the internal system structureto comply with the standard but for thecompliance to apply to the suppliedsystem’s interfaces. The requirement forcompliant interfaces can be used as oneof the system selection criteria.It is extremely unlikely that any
system scope will encompass all of thedata areas represented on the corporatemodel. The next step after agreeing thereview points is, therefore, for the datateam to supply the project with therelevant subset of the corporate model.This provides the project with a rapidstart to their analysis phase and ensuresthat the project’s model starts with acompliant core. The value of this to theproject in terms of saving analysis timeshould not be underestimated.As the project carries out its own
analysis it will enhance and modify thesupplied data model to produce its owndata requirements’ definitions. These
requirements may be expressed in avariety of ways but one of the mostcommon is by the development of aproject logical data model (PLDM). ThePLDM expresses the proposed system’sdata requirements in a formal mannerand satisfying the PLDM can be one ofthe project’s deliverables. Anotheradvantage of the use of a standardmethod like the PLDM is that it makesit very easy to compare a project’s datadefinitions with the corporate standardand/or another project’s model.The rest of this paper will be based on
the used of a PLDM to express theproject’s data requirements, but as longas the project’s data requirements areexpressed clearly and unambiguously,the same principles apply to anyrepresentation.During the development of the
project’s data requirements the datastructures can diverge from thecorporate standard and this is where thevalue of having a data team member onthe project as an analyst or the data teambeing represented at design workshopscan be most obvious.
WHAT IS COMPLIANCE?There are two main types of criteria forthe assessment of compliance of aPLDM to the corporate standard:modeling quality criteria and semanticmapping criteria.The aim of the first group of criteria is
to ensure that the project’s datarequirements are expressed clearly andconsistently. These are presentationquality standards for the PLDM andthey include measures such as:
. Are the entities appropriate to the
business area?
. Are entities, attributes and relationships
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT Vol. 1, 6 386–398 # Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005)394
Jordan
named clearly, unambiguously,
appropriately and in agreement with
corporate model naming conventions?
. Are business examples included?
. Are relationship names consistent with
the cardinality and optionality?
Other formal methods for stating thedata requirements will have functionallysimilar measures of quality.The second group — containing the
semantic criteria — is rather more fun.Here the measure is the degree to whichthe PLDM data structures and conceptsare semantically related to the structuresand concepts within the corporatemodel. To enable this judgment to bemade, one of the data team will producea document which attempts to map eachappropriate PLDM object (entity,attribute and relationship) to a similarobject on the corporate standard.The word ‘‘appropriate,’’ in the
previous sentence, is used to make aparticular point. Not all data elementsand structures on the PLDM need becompliant with the standard. If weremember that the point of the standardis to enable the reuse and exchange ofassets and of information about assets,we can see that any given system islikely to contain data which fall outsidethe standard’s remit: system specific dataand/or purely administrative data. Thecorporate standard need not concernitself with data of this sort and toattempt to map them would be a wasteof resources.The semantic criteria are quite
complex and form an intricatelyinterdependent rule set but some of thesimpler measures include:
. Can each PLDM entity/attribute/
relationship be mapped to an entity on
the standard? If not, should a new entity/
attribute/relationship be created on the
standard?
. Are the PLDM object descriptions
identical to the corporate standard? If
not, do they simply represent a more
constrained definition of a generic
corporate description with contradiction
of the standard?
. Are the cardinality, optionality and
exclusivity of the PLDM relationships
consistent with their representation on
the standard?
At the conclusion of the mapping therewill be two outcomes:
. A list of new project-related knowledge
of data structures and elements, not
currently present on the corporate
standard, will be available for
consideration for inclusion on the
standard.
. A decision as to whether the PLDM and,
by extension, the specified system can be
mapped successfully and unequivocally
to the corporate standard, enabling the
proposed system to use standard
interfaces with other systems in its
environment.
COMPLIANCE DECISIONIt is the responsibility of the data teamto report back to their client, thebusiness technical strategy group, thecompliance status of the selectedprojects. The decision as to whether ornot a system is compliant lies with thedata team but the actions following onfrom the report are the responsibility ofthe technical strategy group.The report back to the client can
include an analysis of the impact of anynon-compliant areas. This impact
Evolving your semantics
# Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005) Vol. 1, 6 386–398 JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT 395
analysis will allow the strategy group tomakes estimates of the cost-benefit ofany remedial work.
FEEDBACK FROM THEPROJECT TO THE STANDARDAs we have seen, one of the outcomes ofthe project compliance review will be alist of the new business knowledgeobtained from the project and notcurrently on the standard. Thisknowledge is then used to help developthe standard. Figure 5 illustrates thisproject-standard interaction.The feedback, from the projects into
the corporate standard, means that thestandard will change over time. Themodifications to the standard might beas minor as the enhancement of aparticular entity definition to include abusiness example specific to one area ofthe business. It might, on the otherhand, involve a major restructuring ofthe corporate standard to include
analysis from a completely new businessarea. To minimize the chance of such amajor revision it is critical that thebusiness is widely consulted on thecontent and meaning of the standard.The good news is that the more
mature the standard, the less likely thatmajor upheaval is to be expected.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT OFTHE STANDARDGiven that the standard is changing overtime it is important to have a changemanagement process in place. Theprocess need not be complex but itshould be formal and rigorous. Anoutline of the change control process forSMEFTM within the BBC is as follows:
1. As part of the project mapping andcompliance work, suggestedmodifications to SMEFTM are addedto a change log with supportingdocumentation.
SMEF v.X
Extracted subset
Extracted subset
Project Model
Additional project
analysis
Additional project
analysis
SMEF v.X+1
VersioningVersioning
New in-scope concepts
Project starting model
Mapping and change control
Figure 5: Project-standard interaction
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT Vol. 1, 6 386–398 # Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005)396
Jordan
2. As part of a regular versionpublication cycle, existing change logentries are grouped into businessareas reflecting the data structuresinvolved and assigned to a memberof the data team for analysis,including impact analysis andrecommendation.
3. The analyst prepares theirrecommendations in consultationwith the business and theserecommendations are debated at aworkshop. Where possible, theworkshop should include bothmembers of the data managementteam and business representatives.The inclusion of the businessminimizes the chance of false analysisleading to a future majorrestructuring of the model and helpsthe model get business buy-in.
4. The decisions from the workshop arerecorded in the change log withadditional supportingdocumentation.
5. Successful recommendations are
incorporated into the next version ofSMEFTM which is then publishedwith a relevant change log extract.
6. The audit trails of the relevant datastructures in the SMEFTM modelwithin the CASE tool are modifiedto reflect the changes and to ensuretraceability. Confidence in themodel’s validity is increased byknowing the model’s derivation andthe reasons for any change.
VERSIONING AND MAPPINGTHE STANDARDIt is as vital to map between versions ofthe corporate standard as it is to mapbetween the standard and the PLDM.Only if we understand the directrelationships between the versions of thestandard can we make statements aboutthe indirect relationships betweenPLDM, which have been mapped todifferent versions of the standard(Figure 6).To facilitate this sort of analysis the
PLDM and the SMEFTM versions are
Repository
Project ModelA
Project ModelB
Project ModelC
…
Standard vX
Standard vX+1
Standard vX+2
Standard vX+3
Standard vX+4Direct mapping
Indirect mapping
Figure 6: Mappings across versions of the standard
Evolving your semantics
# Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005) Vol. 1, 6 386–398 JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT 397
held within a repository tool which alsocontains the mapping tables between thevarious PLDM and SMEFTM models. AsSMEFTM evolves, the tool allowsmappings to be maintained betweenpreviously mapped project models andthe current version of the standard. Thetool also enables impact analyses as thedata standard evolves and is versionedand/or modifications are proposed to thePLDM for an existing system during anenhancement program. These impactanalyses inform the cost-benefit decisionsmade by the business technical strategygroup.
CONCLUSIONSWe have seen that a corporate semanticstandard can simplify the reuse of assetsand information across an organization.The development of this standard iscomplex and requires both resolutionand resource — but it is achievable. Thestandard’s management process must bedesigned to take into account both thestrategic aims of the organization andthe business’ need for agility andflexibility. By doing this, we canensure that the corporate standardevolves in a controlled manner to takeaccount of business and organizationalchange. In the end, the simplification ofmedia asset management brings businessbenefit.Of course, the possession of a robust
corporate semantic standard isn’t
sufficient (on its own) to bring thisabout. The organization requires astrategic implementation strategy tomake use of this semantic standard.That, however, is another story
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe author would like to thank theBBC for allowing reference to, andillustration from, the SMEFTM model.Thanks are also due to colleagues withinboth the BBC and Siemens BusinessServices for help and support as thispaper was written and during the day-to-day activity of the Data IntegrationService. Finally, thanks are due to ‘‘thebusiness’’ for their input into thedevelopment of SMEFTM and the fun aswe’ve all worked to deliver it. SMEFTM
is a trademark of the BBC.
References1. BBC (2004) Standard Media Exchange
Framework — SMEFTM Data Model,v1.10.
2. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J. and Jacobson,I. (1999) The Unified Modelling LanguageUser Guide. Addison Wesley, Reading,MA.
3. Marcus, I. (2005) ‘‘The DAM vendorlandscape: What the buyer shouldknow.’’ Journal of Digital AssetManagement, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 46–58.
4. Chisolm, M. (2001) Managing ReferenceData in Enterprise Databases, MorganKaufmann, San Francisco, CA.
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT Vol. 1, 6 386–398 # Henry Stewart Publications 1743–6559 (2005)398
Jordan