Interpretability

Characteristic Name:	Interpretability
Dimension:	Usability and Interpretability
Description:	Data should be interpretable
Granularity:	Information object
Implementation Type:	Process-based approach
Characteristic Type:	Usage

Verification Metric:

The number of tasks failed or under performed due to the lack of interpretability of data

The number of complaints received due to the lack of interpretability of data

GuidelinesExamplesDefinitons

The implementation guidelines are guidelines to follow in regard to the characteristic. The scenarios are examples of the implementation

Guidelines:	Scenario:
Standardise the interpretation process by clearly stating the criteria for interpreting results so that an interpretation on one dataset is reproducible	(1) 10% drop in production efficiency is a severe decline which needs quick remedial actions
Facilitate the interaction process based on users' task at hand	(1) A traffic light system to indicate the efficiency of a production line to the workers, a detail efficiency report to the production manage, a concise efficiency report for production line supervisors
Design the structure of information in such a way that further format conversions are not necessary for interpretations.	(1) A rating scale of (poor good excellent ) is better than (1,2,3) for rate a service level
Ensure that information is consistent between units of analysis (organisations, geographical areas, populations in concern etc.) and over time, allowing comparisons to be made.	(1) Number of doctors per person is used to compare the health facilities between regions. (2) Same populations are used over the time to analyse the epidemic growths over the tim
Use appropriate visualisation tools to facilitate interpretation of data through comparisons and contrasts	(1) Usage of tree maps , Usage of bar charts, Usage of line graphs

Validation Metric:

How mature is the process to maintain the interpretability of data

These are examples of how the characteristic might occur in a database.

Example:	Source:
when an analyst has data with freshness metric equals to 0, does it mean to have fresh data at hand? What about freshness equals to 10 (suppose, we do not stick to the notion proposed in [23])? Is it even fresher? Similar issues may arise with the notion of age: e.g., with age A(e) = 0, we cannot undoubtedly speak about positive or negative data characteristic because of a semantic meaning of “age” that mostly corresponds to a neutral notion of “period of time”	O. Chayka, T. Palpanas, and P. Bouquet, “Defining and Measuring Data-Driven Quality Dimension of Staleness”, Trento: University of Trento, Technical Report # DISI-12-016, 2012.
Consider a database containing orders from customers. A practice for handling complaints and returns is to create an “adjustment” order for backing out the original order and then writing a new order for the corrected information if applicable. This procedure assigns new order numbers to the adjustment and replacement orders. For the accounting department, this is a high-quality database. All of the numbers come out in the wash. For a business analyst trying to determine trends in growth of orders by region, this is a poor-quality database. If the business analyst assumes that each order number represents a distinct order, his analysis will be all wrong. Someone needs to explain the practice and the methods necessary to unravel the data to get to the real numbers (if that is even possible after the fact).	J. E. Olson, “Data Quality: The Accuracy Dimension”, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 9 January 2003.

Example:

Source:

when an analyst has data with freshness metric equals to 0, does it mean to have fresh data at hand? What about freshness equals to 10 (suppose, we do not stick to the notion proposed in [23])? Is it even fresher? Similar issues may arise with the notion of age: e.g., with age A(e) = 0, we cannot undoubtedly speak about positive or negative data characteristic because of a semantic meaning of “age” that mostly corresponds to a neutral notion of “period of time”

O. Chayka, T. Palpanas, and P. Bouquet, “Defining and Measuring Data-Driven Quality Dimension of Staleness”, Trento: University of Trento, Technical Report # DISI-12-016, 2012.

Consider a database containing orders from customers. A practice for handling complaints and returns is to create an “adjustment” order for backing out the original order and then writing a new order for the corrected information if applicable. This procedure assigns new order numbers to the adjustment and replacement orders. For the accounting department, this is a high-quality database. All of the numbers come out in the wash. For a business analyst trying to determine trends in growth of orders by region, this is a poor-quality database. If the business analyst assumes that each order number represents a distinct order, his analysis will be all wrong. Someone needs to explain the practice and the methods necessary to unravel the data to get to the real numbers (if that is even possible after the fact).

J. E. Olson, “Data Quality: The Accuracy Dimension”, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 9 January 2003.

The Definitions are examples of the characteristic that appear in the sources provided.

Definition:	Source:
Comparability of data refers to the extent to which data is consistent between organisations and over time allowing comparisons to be made. This includes using equivalent reporting periods.	HIQA 2011. International Review of Data Quality Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), Ireland. http://www.hiqa.ie/press-release/2011-04-28-international-review-data-quality.
Data is not ambiguous if it allows only one interpretation – anti-example: Song.composer = ‘Johann Strauss’ (father or son?).	KIMBALL, R. & CASERTA, J. 2004. The data warehouse ETL toolkit: practical techniques for extracting. Cleaning, Conforming, and Delivering, Digitized Format, originally published.
Comparability aims at measuring the impact of differences in applied statistical concepts and measurement tools/procedures when statistics are compared between geographical areas, non-geographical domains, or over time.	LYON, M. 2008. Assessing Data Quality , Monetary and Financial Statistics. Bank of England. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/ statistics/Documents/ms/articles/art1mar08.pdf.
The most important quality characteristic of a format is its appropriateness. One format is more appropriate than another if it is better suited to users’ needs. The appropriateness of the format depends upon two factors: user and medium used. Both are of crucial importance. The abilities of human users and computers to understand data in different formats are vastly different. For example, the human eye is not very good at interpreting some positional formats, such as bar codes, although optical scanning devices are. On the other hand, humans can assimilate much data from a graph, a format that is relatively hard for a computer to interpret. Appropriateness is related to the second quality dimension, interpretability.	REDMAN, T. C. 1997. Data quality for the information age, Artech House, Inc.

Source quality

Characteristic Name:	Source quality
Dimension:	Reliability and Credibility
Description:	Data used is from trusted and credible sources
Granularity:	Information object
Implementation Type:	Process-based approach
Characteristic Type:	Usage

Verification Metric:

The number of tasks failed or under performed due to lack of source quality

The number of complaints received due to lack of source quality

GuidelinesExamplesDefinitons

The implementation guidelines are guidelines to follow in regard to the characteristic. The scenarios are examples of the implementation

Guidelines:	Scenario:
Asses the reputation of data sources	(1) Central Bank is the best source to get daily exchange rates
Evaluate the remedies for non-compliance of data	(1) Any remedies given by the source organisation to mitigate the losses in case if the information is of low quality
Rely on shared information sources created\recommended\used by the organisations operating in the industry	(1) In performing portfolios analysis most organisations use the risk factors produced by a central body of the economy (Central bank)

Validation Metric:

How mature is the process to maintain quality of data sources

These are examples of how the characteristic might occur in a database.

Example:	Source:
Consider an inventory database that contains part numbers, warehouse locations, quantity on hand, and other information. However, it does not contain source information (where the parts came from). If a part is supplied by multiple suppliers, once the parts are received and put on the shelf there is no indication of which supplier the parts came from. The information in the database is always accurate and current. For normal inventory transactions and deci- sion making, the database is certainly of high quality. If a supplier reports that one of their shipments contained defective parts, this database is of no help in identifying whether they have any of those parts or not. The database is of poor quality because it does not contain a relevant element of information. Without that information, the database is poor data quality for the intended use.	J. E. Olson, “Data Quality: The Accuracy Dimension”, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 9 January 2003.

Example:

Source:

Consider an inventory database that contains part numbers, warehouse locations, quantity on hand, and other information. However, it does not contain source information (where the parts came from). If a part is supplied by multiple suppliers, once the parts are received and put on the shelf there is no indication of which supplier the parts came from. The information in the database is always accurate and current. For normal inventory transactions and deci- sion making, the database is certainly of high quality. If a supplier reports that one of their shipments contained defective parts, this database is of no help in identifying whether they have any of those parts or not. The database is of poor quality because it does not contain a relevant element of information. Without that information, the database is poor data quality for the intended use.

J. E. Olson, “Data Quality: The Accuracy Dimension”, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 9 January 2003.

The Definitions are examples of the characteristic that appear in the sources provided.

Definition:	Source:
The source of information (1) guarantees the quality of information it provides with remedies for non-compliance; (2) documents its certification in its Information Quality Management capabilities to capture, maintain, and deliver Quality Information; (3) provides objective and verifiable measures of the Quality of Information it provides in agreed-upon Quality Characteristics; and (4) guarantees that the Information has been protected from unauthorized access or modification.	ENGLISH, L. P. 2009. Information quality applied: Best practices for improving business information, processes and systems, Wiley Publishing.
The notion of abstracting information into a data domain implies that there are enough users of the same set of data that it makes sense to manage their own versions. The dimension of enterprise agreement of usage measures the degree to which different organizations conform to the usage of the enterprise data domain of record instead of relying on their own data set.	LOSHIN, D. 2001. Enterprise knowledge management: The data quality approach, Morgan Kaufmann Pub.
Reputation is the extent to which data are trusted or highly regarded in terms of their source or content.	SCANNAPIECO, M. & CATARCI, T. 2002. Data quality under a computer science perspective. Archivi & Computer, 2, 1-15.
The degree of reputation of an information object in a given community or culture.	STVILIA, B., GASSER, L., TWIDALE, M. B. & SMITH, L. C. 2007. A framework for information quality assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 1720-1733.
Data are trusted or highly regarded in terms of their source and content.	WANG, R. Y. & STRONG, D. M. 1996. Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of management information systems, 5-33.