In the latest SAB newsletter (October 2011) Arofan Gregory has an item about the “business case” for the use of both DDI and SDMX.
Do you think that his text contains a business case?
Do you think that it contains a solution to the DDI/SDMX integration issue?
Of course not. That would be doing serious work. Attempts in that direction would also reveal that Mr Gregory does not have a clue about what he is doing.
Instead, the only thing we learn from the article is that NSOs may need both DDI and SDMX, because they have been developed for different and only partly overlapping purposes. To cap we are informed that there is such a thing as the DDI/SDMX dialogue (but not whay they have (not) achieved).
This is the wagging-the-dog syndromed all over again. There is DDI, which grew slowly and obliquely into the NSO metadata sphere. Then there is SDMX, which was a one off consultant-cowboy initiative that nobody really understood.
So, you take parts from two different bodies and then try to put them together in a new body. Good luck with that! In fact, to continue the metaphor, they do not even know what a real body looks like nor what parts of such a body that are needed and what parts DDI and SDMX cover.
Here is a thought! What if the solution really is one model, which neither is like DDI nor SDMX. Then what? (I know this to be the case, because I know what the solution is).
Then there are organisational issues, discussed by Martin Vocsan in the editorial.
Sure, the organizational structures need focusing. There is currently more organizational bodies “working” with these issues than there are high level objects in the GSIM model. (Here is the SAB page that shows an overview of the current organizationl structure). However, such a focus is hardly possible before there is a focus for content issues. What exactly are all these groups trying to do, and in what order?
The simple truth is that they just do not know.