Architecture Portal

Information and data approaches

Different contributions to a shared information problem.

Adrian Sutherland · Version 1.0 · · © 2005–2026

Two teams use “agreed” differently. One needs a common definition; another needs rules for maintaining and checking the record. Several approaches can help with different parts of that problem.

Contributions

Approach or reference What it contributes Use in the cancellation example
DAMA data management guidance DAMA’s Data Management Body of Knowledge (DMBOK) covers architecture alongside governance, quality, security, metadata and integration. Check who owns the definition, where it is recorded and how people maintain it. Public overview.
TOGAF information guidance The Open Group’s series-guide index includes Information Mapping, Customer Master Data Management and Metadata Management. Locate relevant guidance for connecting a business concept to shared information and its description. Guide index.
Government Data Quality Framework Relates quality to intended use and examines it throughout the data lifecycle. Its six dimensions include completeness, uniqueness, consistency, timeliness, validity and accuracy. Choose checks that reveal a missing agreement, an outdated owner or an incorrect booking reference. Framework, 2020.
W3C PROV Provides a vocabulary for describing the data, activities and agents involved in producing something. Record which learner interaction supplied an agreement and which later correction changed the case. Overview, 2013.

These sources offer management coverage, architecture guidance, quality practice and provenance modelling. The comparison uses the public descriptions linked above; detailed TOGAF guides and the full DMBOK are further reading.

Choices to examine

A shared definition of “accepted” can prevent different teams from acting on different meanings. Local extensions may still be useful: a partner service might need an additional confirmation state. Agree the common meaning and make the extension visible to the people using it.

Choice Potential advantage Cost or consequence to examine
One authoritative agreement record Corrections have a clear place to start. Other users need suitable access or reliable updates.
Local copies for each team Each team can work with a view suited to its task. Copies need identity, freshness and correction rules.
A wider model agreed early Shared definitions and dependencies can be examined together. More work precedes feedback from use.
A small model extended through delivery The team can test important meanings in a limited scope. Extensions need reconciliation with existing users and records.

These are just illustrative choices. A method may combine them. Compare the actual decision rights, records and feedback in the setting where it is used.

Quality in context

A populated agreement field may still name the wrong alternative. A valid code may have an outdated meaning. Describe both the rule and the way someone will check it against the underlying interaction.

In the example, completeness asks whether agreement details are present; accuracy asks whether they reflect what the learner accepted. The question that matters is whether the next person can arrange the right resolution.

Processing choices

Data management guidance also needs to connect to processing design. Data at scale examines medallion architecture: bronze, silver and gold layers with defined contents and quality controls. It relates those layers to batch, streaming, MapReduce and storage choices. These decisions affect freshness, correction, support effort and the cost of changing a derived view.

The data-governance comparison examines ownership, quality and lineage guidance alongside these information models.

Methodology configuration

Map these contributions to your own method’s terms and steps. A data steward may be called an information owner, with some responsibilities allocated elsewhere. Compare the responsibilities before mapping the titles. A quality review may sit within a delivery check or a regular service review.

Use Methodology configuration to relate the advice to your approach. The cycles and worked example show the decisions and records to carry between activities.

About this edition

Refreshed for the September 2026 website update. This edition develops the earlier Architecture Portal and ASAF material; the fictional worked example was added in 2026.

Scope, limitations and next checks

Status and accountability

Read this page with its boundaries visible

Status

In development

Last reviewed

Intended users

  • Architects adapting an existing approach to information and data

Non-goals

  • A prescribed data platform or mandatory document set

Limitations

  • Guidance illustrated by a fictional example; proposed checks and benefits require application.

Next evidence sought

  • Review the definitions and try the records with an existing method.