Talk:Single version of the truth

---

Merge

Shouldn't this be merged with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Version_of_the_Truth ? They're basically the same article I think.

---

Merge with Single Source of Truth

"It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Single Source of Truth".

I do not support this proposal as I believe they are different concepts. A cross reference is useful IMO.

Single Version of the Truth is a technique that makes an arbitrary decision about which representation of a dataset is to be considered 'the truth', when there are two or more equally accurate representations to choose from.

Single Source of the Truth is a database tactic to always source a particular piece of information from one place.

--Tjamesjones 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the merge templates per the comment above --Lox (t,c) 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you look at the various articles referenced herein, or you google the term, the articles are all talking about something quite different to this "message sequencing" sub-type of SVOT. The term is usually used to refer to data-warehousing and organisational change and eliminating disparate data silos and so on.

On another note, I inserted the paragraph: "Critics of SVOT as applied to message sequencing argue that..." - I am one such critic. Tcotco (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

single point of truth

is "single point of truth" a synonym of "Single version of the truth"? If yes, please add it to the articel. My professor always used the first expression... 92.252.90.251 (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, no, to my knowledge it is not a synonym. Without further explanation I'd say single point of truth is a synonym for "single source of truth", which is another article. RonaldKunenborg (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Related Concepts

I attempted to write this section in a way that would make the comparison to Special Relativity theory self-evident, at least to those generally familiar with it. Time delays in computer networks have also motivated comparisons to SR, and many more such comparisons are bound to emerge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLSieving (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You may think that this material is self-evident, but if you are the first person to write it down then it is original research (and not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia until it has been published elsewhere, preferably in a book or refereed journal). If you are not the first person to write it down, then please provide appropriate sources. Where can we find these comparisons to SR you mention? --RichardVeryard (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/time-clocks.pdf) may be the article I had in mind but in any case amply illustrates the relationship between distributed computing systems and Special Relativity. Although Einstein could scarcely have predicted it, the basic principles of Special Relativity, when abstracted to the appropriate level, serve as a tremendous aid in understanding the spatial and temporal dynamics of computer networks. Our use of such comparisons enables us to avoid unecessary rediscovery of what is and is not possible to achieve in distributed computing. The implication seems clear enough to me that a single version of the truth amongst distributed databases is achievable only within suitably tractable domains. Special Relativity and its ramifications simply help us to think about the problem in a structured way from the perspective of a well-proven (albeit often counterintuitive) system of scientific knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLSieving (talk • contribs)

As far as I can see, the only reference to special relativity (SR) in the Lambert paper is an aside comparing the definition of a temporal relationship between events in a distributed computer system with the treatment of time in SR. The author merely asserts that his definition "will appear quite natural to the reader familiar with the invariant space-time formulation of special relativity", but goes on to point out a significant difference between his definition and SR. In other words, there may be a vague analogy, but this hardly counts as "ample illustration" of a relationship or a "tremendous aid in understanding". Furthermore, the Lambert paper doesn't talk explicitly about SVOT, this is your extrapolation. Wikipedia is not the place to develop new material of this kind, however obvious you feel the argument might be. I would encourage you to write a paper outlining the parallels between distributed computing and special relativity and explaining the relevance to SVOT, and post this paper somewhere on the internet for comment (I use Scribd) and/or submit for publication in a journal or working conference. Recognition of these ideas in Wikipedia may come later, after they have been widely discussed elsewhere. --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'll consider this course unless someone beats me to it. It would be a worthwhile endeavor, and of particular relevance to Wikipedia itself, though it shouldn't deter anyone from doing their part to converge on as singular a version as humanly possible of any of the truths it seeks to characterize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLSieving (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's now 2012 and this still sounds like a very interesting paper. If you've written it in the mean time, I'd like to read it. And then it can be used here. RonaldKunenborg (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixing this article

The first paragraph makes little sense to me. "Storing all your data in one place is different from reading all your data from one place." How is it different?

As far as I can see, SVOT as defined there is the same as SSOT. So unless that paragraph could be improved, I would suggest we replace it with: "SVOT is sometimes used as a misnomer for SSOT practices."

- Edit: After re-reading a few times, I think I see the difference the author was trying to espouse here. Basically it's a question of scale. SSOT prefer to single pieces of data, whereas her SVOT refers to an entire database. But this distinction is really quite minor: it seems quite trivial that the SSOT concept could scale up to entire databases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.103.204 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The second definition of SVOT, deciding to endorse a selected version of the truth when multiple versions could have been possible, is interesting and notable, and distinct from SSOT.

Perhaps the most famous example of this practice would be Bitcoin's blockchain. This could be used to help demonstrate the concept. (Although the blockchain's history is based on consensus, that consensus could be describes as an arbitrary decision, albeit shared.)

(Interestingly Bitcoin has tried to scale - in fact it demands a large number of users - but I believe Tcotco will still be able to find criticism for it. Bitcoin's blockchain has split on more than one occasion, requiring external intervention and sometimes resulting in coin theft.)

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.103.204 (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)