A new buzzword seems to have crept up on me when I wasn't looking --
I'm seeing a lot about "master data management" (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Data_Management) as somehow a different
(or more specialized?) discipline than plain 'ole "data management".

Can anyone shed light on this through their own experience? Is it
important to treat "master data" as a viable specialization of data in
general?

My initial reaction is that this is some market-speak that's escaped
into the wild from somewhere (probably the business intelligence/data
warehouse camp), but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

TroyK

TroyK wrote:

I suggest you challenge it on the principle of "No Original Work" and
point out the lack of references. If you have time, I suggest you
(recursively) do the same to every wiki page it references.

It looks to me like some fucktard just making shit up. You know: like
the aspect-oriented fucktards who think the shit they made up is somehow
encyclopedic.

TroyK wrote:

I suggest you challenge it on the principle of "No Original Work" and
point out the lack of references. If you have time, I suggest you
(recursively) do the same to every wiki page it references.

It looks to me like some fucktard just making shit up. You know: like
the aspect-oriented fucktards who think the shit they made up is somehow
encyclopedic.

TroyK wrote:

I suggest you challenge it on the principle of "No Original Work" and
point out the lack of references. If you have time, I suggest you
(recursively) do the same to every wiki page it references.

It looks to me like some fucktard just making shit up. You know: like
the aspect-oriented fucktards who think the shit they made up is somehow
encyclopedic.

TroyK wrote:

I suggest you challenge it on the principle of "No Original Work" and
point out the lack of references. If you have time, I suggest you
(recursively) do the same to every wiki page it references.

It looks to me like some fucktard just making shit up. You know: like
the aspect-oriented fucktards who think the shit they made up is somehow
encyclopedic.

TroyK wrote:

I suggest you challenge it on the principle of "No Original Work" and
point out the lack of references. If you have time, I suggest you
(recursively) do the same to every wiki page it references.

It looks to me like some fucktard just making shit up. You know: like
the aspect-oriented fucktards who think the shit they made up is somehow
encyclopedic.

TroyK wrote:

I suggest you challenge it on the principle of "No Original Work" and
point out the lack of references. If you have time, I suggest you
(recursively) do the same to every wiki page it references.

It looks to me like some fucktard just making shit up. You know: like
the aspect-oriented fucktards who think the shit they made up is somehow
encyclopedic.

TroyK wrote:

I suggest you challenge it on the principle of "No Original Work" and
point out the lack of references. If you have time, I suggest you
(recursively) do the same to every wiki page it references.

It looks to me like some fucktard just making shit up. You know: like
the aspect-oriented fucktards who think the shit they made up is somehow
encyclopedic.

TroyK wrote:

I suggest you challenge it on the principle of "No Original Work" and
point out the lack of references. If you have time, I suggest you
(recursively) do the same to every wiki page it references.

It looks to me like some fucktard just making shit up. You know: like
the aspect-oriented fucktards who think the shit they made up is somehow
encyclopedic.

"Bob Badour" <bbadour (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote

Bob said "It looks to me like some fucktard just making shit up." Bob needs
to move to a warmer clime. Get out of Canada!