Is that a fly in the ointment?

No, it's a flaw in the argument ...

The flaw is plain to see. Data is logically out of date the instant it is separated from its curator.

This always happens when data is copied - instead of seeing it at source.

Bottom line

All data need to be maintained. Curated.

The good operators all do that. At SharedSDS we argue the owner of the data is the only entity with a real vested interest in maintaining it. Obtaining and verifying data is expensive. You would never voluntarily expend those resources unless you needed to.

Without that real vested interest, people who copy data simply won't keep it up-to-date.

That especially includes bureaucrats who love their databases.They get initial data by force but never have the ongoing budget to maintain them. Their salaried and elected masters simply don't understand the real cost.

Unqualified operators have no vested interest either. They spent minimal effort when it was first necessary and have never since felt the need to even refresh the data they "borrowed".

It is the 21st century so why copy?

Computers make it too easy to copy things. Combined with a dark ages mindset that seeing things at source is impossible, copies just proliferate. And get orphaned.

Since the internet, everything has changed. Technology to see things at source has existed for decades. Witness Wikipedia, Instagram and the other giants. The entire planet can look at a single page on Wikipedia and know everyone else is seeing the same thing. No-one need look at something which is out of date.

SharedSDS is built on the principle that anything less than seeing or using data at source is logically wrong.

The point

The entire and simple point is that data should not be copied from elsewhere. It should be used in context.

Call to action

Go to the source, use SharedSDS