Universal Relationship for Business Term

I think you need to model out what kind of business terms will represent your assets on paper before you instantiate your relationships.

For example:
If you have customer as the business term, are you going to try to relate that to the data Asset table that represents customer.
Or are you already doing that buy relating the business dimension customer to that asset.

What is it that you are trying to accomplish by relating the asset(s) to business terms?

I don’t think it’s a bad idea. I’m just wondering aloud what you are trying to accomplish.

Thanks Jerry. The idea is to provide a universal method for defining any asset in the knowledge graph.

Customer is a Data Domain, with Data Concepts (eg email) and would be related to the physical data assets using guided stewardship.

An asset has a property (attribute) either description or definition, so you might ask ‘why would you need to define an asset via a Business Term when you can simply define it at the asset level’. Indeed description/definition are the only universal attributes. While this is true, sometimes there are reasons to pull it out of the asset characteristics and into the knowledge graph proper. This means the definition can then be connected/related to other assets, eg regulatory (eg APRA’s 100 CRDE) or business processes. This - * Asset defined by / defines Business Term - gives a universal/consistent method.

Hey Grant, this is understandable and a relatively common use case. In summary, define the Term once and cascade/inherit the definition down to the constitute Assets.

I like the generic approach of (xxx to Asset and vice versa) and use it for various use cases myself.

I guess only real things to consider are that you don’t get the atomic breakdown by Asset Types that are defined by a Business Term on the Term’s Asset page (which you would get with the less generic approach). Where this could be relevant is if certain Asset Types are defined by a Business Term in a different way or under a different context.

Equally, how the relation gets populated is another factor i.e. who is responsible for curating the link. If the responsibility sits with those managing the Asset then probably no issue but if the responsibility sits with the colleagues who manage the Business Term then you’ll need to remember that having a generic relation means that the colleague has to figure out a way to find the specific Asset when adding the relation, which is a complete nightmare ux wise.

There are pros and cons to both but I think you’re probably correct to do it the generic way considering what you’re trying to achieve.

Thx Alvin. The relationship would be added via a Bulk upload XLS, and from the perspective of asset itself, not the Business Term. I agree, adding relationships via the GUI is a punish (finicky).

It’s just about providing a KISS (universal) approach where a data assets needs to be defined [onto the Knowledge Graph].