dido:01-fdis-ra:02-background-and-motivation:02-4-existing-functional-capabilities-in-reporting-systems:02-4-3-observations-with-provenance:start

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

dido:01-fdis-ra:02-background-and-motivation:02-4-existing-functional-capabilities-in-reporting-systems:02-4-3-observations-with-provenance:start [2026/07/12 11:47] – created nick_didodido:01-fdis-ra:02-background-and-motivation:02-4-existing-functional-capabilities-in-reporting-systems:02-4-3-observations-with-provenance:start [2026/07/18 12:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 14: Line 14:
 Their purpose is to provide shared designations for the concepts, relationships, attributes, and distinctions used in reporting. Their purpose is to provide shared designations for the concepts, relationships, attributes, and distinctions used in reporting.
  
-In current practice, organisations often develop and apply semantic representations in isolation or couple them tightly to specific tools, data formats, analytical workflows, or implementation environments. Their role within the broader reporting lifecycle, particularly their relationship to source artefacts, extracted observations, interpretive rules, and validation outcomes, frequently remains implicit rather than explicitly governed.+In current practice, organizations often develop and apply semantic representations in isolation or couple them tightly to specific tools, data formats, analytical workflows, or implementation environments. Their role within the broader reporting lifecycle, particularly their relationship to source artifacts, extracted observations, interpretive rules, and validation outcomes, frequently remains implicit rather than explicitly governed.
  
 As a result, different systems, agencies, or reporting periods may interpret or operationalise the same semantic construct differently without adequate visibility, traceability, or governance. Such variation weakens comparability and makes it difficult to determine which definitions, classifications, relationships, or versions governed a particular interpretation. As a result, different systems, agencies, or reporting periods may interpret or operationalise the same semantic construct differently without adequate visibility, traceability, or governance. Such variation weakens comparability and makes it difficult to determine which definitions, classifications, relationships, or versions governed a particular interpretation.
Line 32: Line 32:
 The Reference Architecture therefore treats semantic representations as reusable, versioned architectural assets positioned explicitly within the reporting lifecycle and traceable to the interpretive and validation outcomes they govern. The Reference Architecture therefore treats semantic representations as reusable, versioned architectural assets positioned explicitly within the reporting lifecycle and traceable to the interpretive and validation outcomes they govern.
  
-Their architectural significance lies not in the selection of a particular representation technology, modelling language, or formalism. It lies in their function as stable semantic references governed through explicit authority, identification, versioning, provenance, and lifecycle controls independently of any specific implementation technology.+Their architectural significance lies not in the selection of a particular representation technology, modeling language, or formalism. It lies in their function as stable semantic references governed through explicit authority, identification, versioning, provenance, and lifecycle controls independently of any specific implementation technology.
  
 This treatment supports: This treatment supports:
  • dido/01-fdis-ra/02-background-and-motivation/02-4-existing-functional-capabilities-in-reporting-systems/02-4-3-observations-with-provenance/start.1783882051.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2026/07/12 11:47
  • by nick_dido