EnergyIQ’s Steve Cooper offered an interesting slant on data Quality and PPDM’s business rules in the Denver chapter’s meet earlier this year. Cooper questions the rationale of current ‘table-based’ compliance tests. Table-based compliance offers ‘slim to no possibility of multiple software applications having update interoperability on the database.’ This is because the complex PPDM database requires a methodical approach to data population*. Cooper suggests that the development of a common object model atop of the PPDM database should be a priority for the Association.
You have often heard calls for ‘collaboration’ in various contexts. But what happens when war breaks out between the collaborators? Neuralog’s Tarun Chandrasekhar spoke about ‘Ego management in data management’ and ‘how to please everyone and live happily ever after.’ The answer, it would seem, is to try to keep as many ‘collaborators’ out of the data loop as possible and to make life easy for those remaining.
Wes Baird, speaking on behalf of Emile Coetzer (Axioma Asset Engineering) offered what some might perceive as a rather contentious advocacy for PPDM to pitch into the facilities engineering model space that is already rather full with representations from Fiatech, Mimosa and POSC/Caesar.
Jan Van Sickle of Downtown Design Services offered an interesting and very thorough presentation on the complexity of survey data management. This is coming to the fore in high intensity environments such as factory drilling in the Barnett Shale. Van Sickle’s tools of the trade include Google Earth (with Arc2Earth), the Pipeline Open Data Standard (PODS) and DDS’ Tract Manager Xtreme database. Download the presentations from the PPDM website.
* A similar observation led both Schlumberger and Landmark to recommend API-based access only to their data stores.
© Oil IT Journal - all rights reserved.