When you use a Standardization stage (in version 8.x) there are no descriptions for the columns (business intelligence, matching and reporting) on its output link.
Is there any way (other than manually) that these can be added? There does not appear to be any material in the manuals that describes what is in each of these fields. Would it be possible, for example, to extend the comment field in the Dictionary file so that a meaningful description of each field could be supplied there? Then some mechanism for bringing these into a "table definition" as used in the job design would be the kind of thing I seek.
Consider this an enhancement request, if that helps.
This topic has been locked.
2 replies Latest Post - 2008-07-08T03:30:22Z by Ray.Wurlod
Pinned topic Descriptions of Standardization Output Fields
Answered question This question has been answered.
Unanswered question This question has not been answered yet.
Updated on 2008-07-08T03:30:22Z at 2008-07-08T03:30:22Z by Ray.Wurlod
SystemAdmin 110000D4XK533 PostsACCEPTED ANSWER
Re: Descriptions of Standardization Output Fields2008-07-07T12:36:45Z in response to Ray.WurlodRay,
Are you asking for business intelligence, matching and reporting to be added to each field in the description or for a description of what NameGeneration is?
Secondly, if you creating a rule set from scratch, what additional metadata would you like to see with a dictionary field?
Ray.Wurlod 12000063JK18 PostsACCEPTED ANSWER
Re: Descriptions of Standardization Output Fields2008-07-08T03:30:22Z in response to SystemAdminNothing so esoteric, Stewart.
When one imports a table definition, one can add (if they're not already there) descriptions for each of the individual columns.
However, when the table definition comes from a QS dictionary file, there is no mechanism (other than manual) for getting the descriptions of the business intelligence, matching and reporting fields, either before or after saving the table definition to the Repository.
Being a diligent documenter, I'd like the ability to be able to do that. I'm sure it would not be difficult.