I don't think much of this article. The Brown M&M example seems a bit convoluted and anyway "what to do instead" is just a bunch of platitutes. "Write doc to ma

I don't think much of this article. The Brown M&M example seems a bit convoluted and anyway "what to do instead" is just a bunch of platitutes. "Write doc to make it searchable" ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In my experience one of the big problems (I just had a call from one of my users demonstrating exactly this point) is that often there is a disconnect in terms of vocabulary. What the business calls a "refresh" of System X123 could be any of "full copy from prod of the whole X123 data", "can we please just import the subset of data I created in X123 Test?", "X123 provides a sort of materialized view of the sale prices to Z567, but it seems that the view is outdated, can we please refresh that"? This happens (albeit less severely ... "usually") inside IT itself at least when the organization gets over a certain size. So dataset are named with their content, but the actual content might change scope or the part which is more relevant varies for each consumer, therefore both the provider and the N consumers tend to refer to the same thing with slightly different names while the "correct" name is already used for something else in different context (e.g.: "Sale prices" - is it now? future? historical? only for agents? only for a specific country/market...?). Even just having a single, unambiguous lexicon would help a lot (and would make the "searchabilitly" a bit less mythical) but I don't see this or similar points addressed, while apparently the detail of the sound and light equipment deployed by Van Halen seems to definitely require some space.