Uniqueness

Characteristic Name:	Uniqueness
Dimension:	Consistency
Description:	The data is uniquely identifiable
Granularity:	Record
Implementation Type:	Rule-based approach
Characteristic Type:	Declarative

Verification Metric:

The number of duplicate records reported per thousand records

GuidelinesExamplesDefinitons

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

Guidelines:	Scenario:
Ensure that every entity(record) is unique by implementing a key in every relation	(1) Key constraint
Ensure that same entity is not recorded twice under different unique identifiers	(1) Same customer is entered under different customer ID
Ensure that unique key is not-null at any cost	(1) Employee ID which is the key of employee table is not null at any cost
In case of using bar codes standardise the bar code generation process to ensure that Bar codes are not reused	(1) UPC

Validation Metric:

How mature is the creation and implementation of the DQ rules to maintain uniqueness of data records

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

Example:	Source:
A school has 120 current students and 380 former students (i.e. 500 in total) however; the Student database shows 520 different student records. This could include Fred Smith and Freddy Smith as separate records, despite there only being one student at the school named Fred Smith. This indicates a uniqueness of 500/520 x 100 = 96.2%	N. Askham, et al., “The Six Primary Dimensions for Data Quality Assessment: Defining Data Quality Dimensions”, DAMA UK Working Group, 2013.
duplicate vendor records with the same name and different addresses make it difficult to ensure that payment is sent to the correct address. When purchases by one company are associated with duplicate master records, the credit limit for that company can unknowingly be exceeded. This can expose the business to unnecessary credit risks.	D. McGilvray, “Executing Data Quality Projects: Ten Steps to Quality Data and Trusted Information”, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2008.
on two maps of the same date. Since events have a duration, this idea can be extended to identify events that exhibit temporal overlap.	H. Veregin, “Data Quality Parameters” in P. A. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire, and D. W. Rhind (eds) Geographical Information Systems: Volume 1, Principles and Technical Issues. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1999, pp. 177-89.
The patient’s identification details are correct and uniquely identify the patient.	P. J. Watson, “Improving Data Quality: A Guide for Developing Countries”, World Health Organization, 2003.

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

Definition:	Source:
The entity is unique — there are no duplicate values.	B. BYRNE, J. K., D. MCCARTY, G. SAUTER, H. SMITH, P WORCESTER 2008. The information perspective of SOA design Part 6:The value of applying the data quality analysis pattern in SOA. IBM corporation.
Asserting uniqueness of the entities within a data set implies that no entity exists more than once within the data set and that there is a key that can be used to uniquely access each entity. For example, in a master product table, each product must appear once and be assigned a unique identifier that represents that product across the client applications.	LOSHIN, D. 2006. Monitoring Data quality Performance using Data Quality Metrics. Informatica Corporation.
Each real-world phenomenon is either represented by at most one identifiable data unit or by multiple but consistent identifiable units or by multiple identifiable units whose inconsistencies are resolved within an acceptable time frame.	PRICE, R. J. & SHANKS, G. Empirical refinement of a semiotic information quality framework. System Sciences, 2005. HICSS'05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 2005. IEEE, 216a-216a.

Semantic consistency

Characteristic Name:	Semantic consistency
Dimension:	Consistency
Description:	Data is semantically consistent
Granularity:	Element
Implementation Type:	Rule-based approach
Characteristic Type:	Declarative

Verification Metric:

The number of semantically inconsistent data reported per thousand records

GuidelinesExamplesDefinitons

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

Guidelines:	Scenario:
Ensure that semantics of data is consistent within/across applications	(1) All orders placed by the customers are called “Sales order” in all tables/databases. (2) Anti-example: Payment type ( Check) Payment Details (Card type, Card number)
Maintenance of data dictionary or standard vocabularies of data semantics	(1) Data dictionary provides technical data as well as semantics of data

Validation Metric:

How mature is the creation and implementation of the DQ rules to maintain semantic consistency

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

Example:	Source:
School admin: a student’s date of birth has the same value and format in the school register as that stored within the Student database.	N. Askham, et al., “The Six Primary Dimensions for Data Quality Assessment: Defining Data Quality Dimensions”, DAMA UK Working Group, 2013.
A company has a color ﬁeld that only records red, blue, and yellow. A new requirement makes them decide to break each of these colors down to multiple shadings and thus institute a scheme of recording up to 30 different colors, all of which are variations of red, blue, and yellow. None of the old records are updated to the new scheme, as only new records use it. This data- base will have inconsistency of representation of color that crosses a point in time.	J. E. Olson, “Data Quality: The Accuracy Dimension”, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 9 January 2003.

Example:

Source:

School admin: a student’s date of birth has the same value and format in the school register as that stored within the Student database.

N. Askham, et al., “The Six Primary Dimensions for Data Quality Assessment: Defining Data Quality Dimensions”, DAMA UK Working Group, 2013.

A company has a color ﬁeld that only records red, blue, and yellow. A new requirement makes them decide to break each of these colors down to multiple shadings and thus institute a scheme of recording up to 30 different colors, all of which are variations of red, blue, and yellow. None of the old records are updated to the new scheme, as only new records use it. This data- base will have inconsistency of representation of color that crosses a point in time.

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:
Data about an object or event in one data store is semantically Equivalent to data about the same object or event in another data store.	ENGLISH, L. P. 2009. Information quality applied: Best practices for improving business information, processes and systems, Wiley Publishing.
Data is consistent if it doesn’t convey heterogeneity, neither in contents nor in form – anti examples: Order.Payment. Type = ‘Check’; Order. Payment. CreditCard_Nr = 4252… (inconsistency in contents); Order.requested_by: ‘European Central Bank’;Order.delivered_to: ‘ECB’ (inconsistency in form,because in the first case the customer is identified by the full name, while in the second case the customer’s acronym is used).	KIMBALL, R. & CASERTA, J. 2004. The data warehouse ETL toolkit: practical techniques for extracting. Cleaning, Conforming, and Delivering, Digitized Format, originally published.
The extent of consistency in using the same values (vocabulary control) and elements to convey the same concepts and meanings in an information object. This also includes the extent of semantic consistency among the same or different components of the object.	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.