Learn & Share

 In large RDM implementations containing dozens of datasets and hundreds of business rules, choosing the appropriate Ataccama RDM capability improves consistency, reduces implementation effort, and makes solutions easier to maintain. Selecting the Right Validation Mechanism The first design decision is not how to write a validation, but which Ataccama RDM capability is best suited to implement the business requirement. Using Dataset Configuration RequiredUse the Required property for mandatory attributes instead of validation expressions such as: column is not null GeneratedUse the Generated property for business key attributes that should remain unchanged after record creation.  Using Custom Data Types (Domains) Reusable attribute constraints should be implemented as Project Data Types (Domains) rather than duplicating the same validation logic across multiple datasets.  Typical examples include:Requirement Domain Example Configuration Data type Integer, Long, Float, B

Yes, it is clearly stated in the documentation (Scheduler - Ataccama ONE Gen2 Platform Latest), but it is also easy to overlook: scheduling plans for workflows look a bit like crontab schedules. But they aren't.Example workflow scheduling plan:<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><scheduleDefinition>        <description>ATAC_DWH - Load Dimensions and Facts</description>        <enabled>true</enabled>        <job workflow="myorg:ATAC_DWH_dims_and_facts.ewf" class="com.ataccama.adt.scheduler.job.WorkflowJob"/>        <scheduling>0 20 1-5 *</scheduling></scheduleDefinition> For example, when you want to schedule workflow Monday to Friday at 20:00 you might think “easy, I just go to crontab.guru, Fill in what I want and voila”: the schedule plan will be 0 20 * * 1-5.Except you will notice that your workflow will also run in weekends. Because the format of the workflow scheduler is:minutes hours day_of_week day_of_monthIt has only

Version 16.3.0, on PaaS.Normally, our Ataccama team gets access to all workflows in the admin centre.I’ve got a use case where we want to allow users with 1 RDM role to run 1 workflow. They should not be able to run any other workflows.I’m trying to play with the intercepturls in the git project.I tried giving access to the welcome page, but it comes up weird. Normal welcome page:   Welcome page for my test user:   How do I neatly provide the access to just that 1 workflow but also allow them to navigate to it? Or am I stuck having to give them the exact URL? I can’t give /console/wfConfigs/** to allow them to browse to the workflow, because that would automatically allow them access to all workflows.Any ideas?

 An Ataccama RDM implementation starts with business requirements and results in an RDM configuration. Throughout the implementation, consultants produce numerous artefacts, including validation rules, migration plans, test cases and technical documentation. Although these artefacts serve different purposes, they all describe the same solution. Traditionally, creating and maintaining these artefacts requires navigating business requirements, XML configuration files and project documentation. Large Language Models (LLMs) can accelerate this process by generating implementation artefacts and analysing the completed configuration.The following sections demonstrate practical examples of how AI can support different stages of an Ataccama RDM implementation. AI Support Across the RDM Implementation Lifecycle№ Project stage Project task Input Coverage AI support 1⃣ Design Validation Rule and Lookup Design Business requirements, data model, sample data, DQ rule templates Ful

 CSV and TXT imports through the Ataccama RDM Web UI can complete with non-intuitive status messages, making it difficult to understand what happened or how to fix the input file.This article explains the most common import messages, what they mean, and where to find additional information to diagnose and resolve import issues.  Import Completed Successfully   Two common scenarios produce the same completion message. Scenario Message Meaning Records were created or updated ‘Import’ operation finished successfully. The import completed and changes were applied. Imported data is identical to existing records ‘Import’ operation finished successfully. The import completed successfully, but no changes were required because the imported data already matches the current data.   Import Completed with Warnings  A warning indicates that the import completed, but some records could not be processed. Scenario Message

During data migration or bulk imports, validation issues are often spread across multiple RDM datasets. Although each dataset provides its own validation results, reviewing them individually requires switching between datasets and records, making it difficult to assess the overall quality of the imported data.A consolidated validation report provides a single view of validation issues across the implementation, allowing data stewards and developers to quickly identify affected datasets, records, attributes, and validation messages. Retrieving Validation Results The report follows the same retrieval pattern for every dataset. The only dataset-specific elements are the dataset name and the business key displayed in the report.The query performs the following steps:Reads validation results from the validation table (<dataset>v).     Shows validation results for both the published (<dataset>) and draft (<dataset>e) versions of the dataset. Returns only validation entries

 Expression validations allow business-specific data quality rules to be implemented directly in Ataccama RDM without custom development.Each validation consists of two parts:Validation Expression – defines the business rule. Validation Message – explains why the value is invalid and how it can be corrected.Both components are equally important. A well-designed validation not only prevents invalid data from being entered but also helps business users understand and resolve data quality issues efficiently.  Before Implementing a ValidationBefore implementing a validation, define the following:Item Description Business requirement The business rule to be enforced Target attribute The attribute being validated Validation expression The logical expression used to evaluate the rule Validation message The message displayed when the validation fails Step 1. Define the Validation RuleThe validation expression defines the condition that an attribute value must satisfy to be consi

Hello Ataccama Community,We are using Ataccama ONE 17.0 and have configured Business Term hierarchies along with Data Quality Evaluation Rules.Our requirement is to display an aggregated Data Quality score on a parent Business Term based on the quality results of its child terms.Could anyone please suggest the possible ways to do so within the Web App itself as :Whether Business Term hierarchy quality rollup is supported in our Ataccama ONE 17.0 deployment.Whether any server-side configuration, feature flag, or platform setting is required to enable parent-term quality aggregation.If supported, please provide the configuration steps or documentation reference.We have reviewed the Business Glossary and Data Quality configuration screens but do not see any hierarchy rollup setting available in the Web App.Thank you for your assistance.Regards,Advait Kulkarni

Hi Team,Do you have any code snippet to Integrate Ataccama with Collibra ?I would like to map ataccama  catalog item and its metadata with Collibra and vice versa.Similar way for Business Terms, & Data Quality RulesAny documentation or code snippet related to requirement will help

I’m trying to implement a monitoring project on two tables: one a database table, and another a virtual catalogue item. I would like to tag selected mandatory attributes on both tables.While I can see the “+ make mandatory” feature on the database table (1st screenshot), I cannot see it for the virtual catalogue item (2nd screenshot). It would be good to be alerted of unplanned changes in table structures in both cases.  

Good Day, I would like to firstly, thank God almighty for this Ataccama platform that he granted me chance to be its member. I managed to start level 1 and complete various exercises.

Hello Ataccama,I would like to share an observation regarding the behavior of the review workflow and approver access rights.We have an entity with the review workflow enabled, where the approver is defined as a specific group (not based on stewardship assignments).From my testing, I observed that when a user publishes the entity for the first time and the review workflow is triggered, the approver group automatically receives full access to the entity. This happens regardless of whether stewardship is assigned or not.However, the behavior seems different when entities are uploaded in bulk from ONE Desktop. If multiple entities are imported without stewardship assigned, the review workflow is skipped during the initial publication. As a result, only the creator can access the entities, which is the expected behavior.Later, if one of these entities is modified manually, the review workflow is triggered as expected. The approver group can review, approve, and publish the changes. Neverth

Hi everyone,I have a business term called Customer Status. This term is sourced from the Status column in the following table:Customer | Status | UpdateTime---------|--------|---------------------1 | Gold | 08.07.2026 00:00:002 | Silver | 08.07.2026 00:00:003 | Bronze | 08.07.2026 00:00:00I would like to define a timeliness rule for the term based on the UpdateTime column, e.g. Customer Status term is timely if: dateDiff(UpdateTime, today(), “DAYS”) < 2Is this possible?    

I would like to implement a DQ accuracy rule where Attribute A is accurate if and only if its value is greater than Attribute B. Attribute B cannot be derived from Attribute A.  For example: Attribute A: Date of DeathAttribute B: Date of BirthRule: Date of death needs to be greater than date of birth for a particular person.   

Hello, I'm working on a MDM project and need help with workflow-governed record creation via the REST API.I have an integration where record creation requests come in from a third party application with the required record details.I pick up those details and use them to create a new master record in MDM via POST /api/rest/master/{viewName}/{typeName}Currently the record gets created and published immediately, completely bypassing the workflow.What I actually need is for this record creation to go through the workflow, meaning it should create a task in draft state with the actual record details, and then go through the configured approval workflow steps before being published.Is there a way to achieve this via the REST API? Any workarounds or approaches others have used for this would be really helpful. 

HelloI am getting new line character while extracting metadata (column name) from catalog in DQC. I need to replace that with space. Data is extracted as a csv and this new line character is breaking my csv. How can I do that? 

There seems to be no way to hide the global settings from users? I can only make them read only at best?

It seems that One Data access permissions are derived from Catalog Item permissions.I have a situation where a user group should only have read rights on Catalog Items within their domain but ful rights on One Data objects within that domain. This seems impossible?This is for version 16.3.1

Hello, Ataccama Community.  I am hoping you can help me figure this out.  I am trying to create a timeliness check.  The objective would be to have a general DQ rule that accepts an update date and then allows the user to configure a minimum delay and a maximum delay.  The rule would find the number of days from today and the update date, then take the maximum of that value.  If the max of that delay is mroe than the maximum parameter set, then it should return a “MAJOR DELAY” indication.Here is my challenge.  It does not seem to work when I use the parameter.  It only works when I use a hard coded value for the “maximum delay” in the test.I am hoping someone can help me figure it out. 

I am trying use pushdown jdbc databricks (Azure databricks) connection in ataccama. Authentication using service principal in Hybrid Infrastructure.Authentication type : JDBC string for EntraID authenticationor OAuth M2M service principal Both methods are not working. Please help me if there is any additional setting needs to be done apart from given in documentation. 

We have been working on the FIBO ontology and have started setting up the custom relationships as they appear in FIBO. Some examples are below:  FIBO Parent Term FIBO Relationship FIBO Child Term Account hasOpenDate Open Date Account isHeldBy Account Holder Account isIdentifiedBy Account Identifier Account hasCloseDate Close Date Account hasRecord Transaction Record Account hasBalance Balance Account isProvidedBy Account Provider Account As An Asset isAssetOf Account Holder Account As An Asset isPlayedBy Account Account Holder holds Account  The relationships are in the middle column, titled “FIBO Relationship.”When we create the relationships, they are duplicating because there is not an inverse relationship. For example, Parent has an i

Rule description is field must contain 0 or 1 representing false or True respectively. Is this convertion possible? I am not able to create rule with this rule description because the source table data has only true or false or null values only. But rule description says different.

Hi ​@anna.spakova I was able to create data slice in CI. But in the monitoring project the option is not visible 

I have worked in Informatica Data Quality and I am new to Ataccama , can anyone explain me with steps In IDQ we create Rule→ Profiling → Mapping → Workflow → Scorecard Validation → Drill down the records 

Hello,I am trying to export the information displayed in the “History” tab of Glossary / Business Terms in Ataccama ONE using the ONE Metadata Reader component.On the Business Term page in the UI, the History tab displays details such as:Version number Published on date/time Published by userIt also shows when a term was newly created or updated, including the timestamp and the name of the user who made the change, similar to an audit/history log.I would like to export this information together with my glossary/business term metadata.However, in the ONE Metadata Reader, I can only see the standard business term attributes, and I cannot find any entities or columns related to:history version history revisions published by published on audit informationI am therefore trying to understand where this information is stored and how it can be exported.Could you please clarify:Which entity/table/object stores the data displayed in the History tab? Is this history/version information accessible