Of all the mainstream business technologies, classic data warehousing might well be considered the least evolved in terms of practice and approach. And while data warehousing continues to spread as a foundational technology, the availability of information and speed of change have led businesses to add operational data strategies to the data warehouse mix - something the textbook writers didn't originally envision. So it might well be left to one of the fathers of the industry to update the definition of the data warehouse. That person is Bill Inmon, president of Inmon Data Systems. His model - called Data Warehouse 2.0 - is delivered with a complete architecture, outright enthusiasm - and a little ambivalence. You'll find the technical details in Inmon's recent articles in DM Review and at his Web site, http://www.inmoncif.com/; more recently, BI Review editor and DM Review Editorial Director Jim Ericson spoke with Bill Inmon for a philosophical take on DW 2.0.DMR: Why do we need Data Warehouse 2.0?
Bill Inmon: There are two reasons for DW 2.0 - the first is for the integrity of the definition because I feel there are too many definitions floating around. The second reason is the need for a vision for the future of data warehousing, which I believe a lot of people in the industry have wrong. It came from confusion and from vendors trying to sell products. There were people building transactional systems they were calling a data warehouse; people building federated versions of a data warehouse; people building data marts that they were calling a data warehouse. Those are just some of the renditions.
Register or login for access to this item and much more
All Information Management content is archived after seven days.
Community members receive:
- All recent and archived articles
- Conference offers and updates
- A full menu of enewsletter options
- Web seminars, white papers, ebooks
Already have an account? Log In
Don't have an account? Register for Free Unlimited Access