Semantic Customer 360: A Context-Preserving Architecture for Unifying Heterogeneous Enterprise Customer Data
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Customer information is handled in enterprise organisations through customer relationship management systems, transactional databases, support systems, and marketing systems, where the meaning is coded using incompatible local schemas. Without capturing the context of the source of those records, where and when they were created, and which regulatory contexts the records are relevant to, such unified views of customers are complete in content but lacking in interpretive fidelity. This paper aims to compile the literature in the fields of context awareness, linked data, entity resolution, ontology-based data access, master data management, knowledge graphs, data lake architecture and data protection regulation to propose an architecture for the Semantic Customer 360 that aims to preserve explicit contexts, and not merely data consolidation. The architecture places a governed data-lake ingestion zone, a hybrid schema-matching module, a probabilistic and graph-based entity-resolution pipeline, and a knowledge-graph-structured semantic layer under the hood of customer-facing analytics and service consumption. The synthesis shows that several candidate comparison techniques can lead to over 10 times fewer comparisons than naive pairwise comparison, that a choice of master data management strategy has measurable impact on governance overhead, that ontology-based mediation can also enable access for queries to sensitive data without moving or copying physical data, and that perceived regulatory compliance is measurable and correlated with customers' trust. The architecture proposed along with comparative analysis it provides can help enterprise data architects to gauge unstructured approaches to evaluating matching algorithms, integration strategies and governance mechanisms that can help them harmonize disparate customer data while keeping them easily traceable and audit-friendly in the present landscape of data protection requirements.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
[1] C. Bizer, T. Heath, and T. Berners-Lee, “Linked data-the story so far,” in Linking the world’s information: Essays on tim berners-lee’s invention of the world wide web, 2023, pp. 115–143. doi: 10.4018/jswis.2009081901.
[2] D. Calvanese et al., “The MASTRO system for ontology-based data access,” Semant. Web, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 2011, doi: 10.3233/SW-2011-0029.
[3] H. Wache et al., “Ontology-Based Integration of Information: A Survey of Existing Approaches,” in Proceedings of the IJCAI-01 Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, 2001, pp. 108–117. [Online]. Available: https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ijcai/WacheVVSSNH01
[4] S. Chatterjee, R. Chaudhuri, and D. Vrontis, “AI and digitalization in relationship management: Impact of adopting AI-embedded CRM system,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 150, pp. 437–450, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.033.
[5] S. Chatterjee, N. P. Rana, S. Khorana, P. Mikalef, and A. Sharma, “Assessing organizational users’ intentions and behavior to AI integrated CRM systems: A meta-UTAUT approach,” Inf. Syst. Front., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1299–1313, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10796-021-10181-1.
[6] M. Baldauf, S. Dustdar, and F. Rosenberg, “A survey on context-aware systems,” Int. J. Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 263–277, 2007, doi: 10.1504/IJAHUC.2007.014070.
[7] A. Hogan et al., “Knowledge graphs,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1–37, 2021, doi: 10.1145/3447772.
[8] C. Giebler, “The data lake architecture framework,” 2021, doi: 10.18420/btw2021-19.
[9] V. Christophides, V. Efthymiou, T. Palpanas, G. Papadakis, and K. Stefanidis, “An Overview of End-to-End Entity Resolution for Big Data,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1–42, 2020, doi: 10.1145/3418896.
[10] P. N. Sawadogo and J. Darmont, “On data lake architectures and metadata management,” J. Intell. Inf. Syst., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 97–120, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10844-020-00608-7.
[11] F. Haneem, N. Kama, N. Taskin, D. Pauleen, and N. A. A. Bakar, “Determinants of master data management adoption by local government organizations: An empirical study,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 45, pp. 25–43, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.007.
[12] A. Haug, A. M. Staskiewicz, and L. Hvam, “Strategies for master data management: a case study of an international hearing healthcare company,” Inf. Syst. Front., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1903–1923, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10796-022-10323-z.
[13] S. Ji, S. Pan, E. Cambria, P. Marttinen, and P. S. Yu, “A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acquisition, and Applications,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 494–514, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3070843.
[14] M. Lenzerini, “Data integration: A theoretical perspective,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-first ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 2002, pp. 233–246. doi: 10.1145/543613.543644.
[15] S. Mate et al., “Ontology-based data integration between clinical and research systems,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 1, p. e0116656, 2015, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116656.
[16] F. Nargesian, E. Zhu, R. J. Miller, K. Q. Pu, and P. C. Arocena, “Data lake management: challenges and opportunities,” Proc. VLDB Endow., vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 1986–1989, 2019, doi: 10.14778/3352063.3352116.
[17] G. Papadakis, V. Efthymiou, E. Thanos, O. Hassanzadeh, and P. Christen, “An analysis of one-to-one matching algorithms for entity resolution,” VLDB J., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1369–1400, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00778-023-00791-3.
[18] D. G. Brizan and A. U. Tansel, “A Survey of Entity Resolution and Record Linkage Methodologies,” Commun. IIMA, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 5, 2006, doi: 10.58729/1941-6687.1324.
[19] N. G. Marchant, B. I. P. Rubinstein, and R. C. Steorts, “Bayesian graphical entity resolution using exchangeable random partition priors,” J. Surv. Stat. Methodol., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 569–596, 2023, doi: 10.1093/jssam/smac030.
[20] G. Papadakis, D. Skoutas, E. Thanos, and T. Palpanas, “Blocking and Filtering Techniques for Entity Resolution: A Survey,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 1–42, 2020, doi: 10.1145/3377455.
[21] E. Rahm and P. A. Bernstein, “A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching,” VLDB J., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 334–350, 2001, doi: 10.1007/s007780100057.
[22] M. Rhahla, S. Allegue, and T. Abdellatif, “Guidelines for GDPR compliance in Big Data systems,” J. Inf. Secur. Appl., vol. 61, p. 102896, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jisa.2021.102896.
[23] S. Singh and J. Singh, “A survey on master data management techniques for business perspective,” in Cyber Intelligence and Information Retrieval: Proceedings of CIIR 2021, Springer, 2021, pp. 609–617. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4284-5_54.
[24] J. Zhang, F. Hassandoust, and J. E. Williams, “Online Customer Trust in the Context of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),” Pacific Asia J. Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 86–122, 2020, doi: 10.17705/1pais.12104.