Comment by rorylaitila
2 days ago
No, because context and use defines the meaning. To the data team, a "Movie" might mean a file on disk. To the finance team, a "Movie" might mean a contract to a studio. To the Customer, a "Movie" is something they watch. That each of these contexts can use the term "Movie" does not actually mean they share anything in common. We could have called them "Files", "Contracts" and "Watchables" instead.
When people embark on 'universal' data definitions, conversations of the type "But is it reaaalllly a Movie??" are an endless source of confusion.
Alternatively, the process of defining these global definitions exposes exactly this conflict and leads to common definitions of "Files", "Contracts" and "Watchables" instead of 3 conflicting definitions of "Movies"?
The conflict will definitely help define the terms. Maybe they will all choose "Movie", maybe not. Just there is no universally ideal term that represents a concept for all users for all time. It's a common error to seek such universal definitions.
Exactly. In UDA, each Movie entity belongs to a specific business domain. Universality isn't an inherent truth, it's a social alignment within a group, useful only to the extent that it helps solve shared problems.