Translating Expectations into Quality Directives

Blog Administrator | Analyzing Data Quality, Data Integration, Data Management, Data Quality | , , , ,

By David Loshin

In my last post, I raised the question about the variety of terms used in describing address quality, and I introduced a set of core concepts that needed to be correct to provide the best benefits for accurate parcel delivery. Let’s look at these more carefully:

1) The item must be directed to a specific recipient party (either an
individual or an organization.)
2) The address must be a deliverable address.
3) The intended recipient must be associated with the deliverable
4) The delivery address must conform to the USPS standard.

Together these concepts have implications for address quality, and we can start
with the first 3 concepts. The first concept implies a direct connection between
entities: the sender and the recipient.

The corresponding business rule is relatively subtle – it suggests that the
recipient must be identifiable to the sender. Concept #2 is a bit more direct:
the address must be a deliverable address. This means that the address must
carry enough information to enable a carrier to locate the address as a prelude
to delivery. Concept #3 establishes a direct dependence between the recipient
and the addressed location, implying awareness of that connection.

Together we can infer more discrete assertions:

• The address must be accurately mappable to a real location.
• The address must contain enough information to ensure delivery.
• The recipient must be a recognized entity.
• The recipient must be connected to the address.

In the next few posts we will figure out what these assertions really mean in
terms of transforming a provided address into a complete, validated, and
standardized address.