Diagnostic Answers RMD10-001–017
Use only after attempting the matching practice set.
RMD10-001 — A
Why it wins: Chapter 10 manages reconciled, governed, semantically consistent shared Reference and Master Data for enterprise use.
- A: correct core definition.
- B: transaction/warehouse activity, not Chapter 10’s shared-data discipline.
- C: too narrow; Reference Data may be internal or external and Chapter 10 also covers Master Data.
- D: an MDM tool supports governance; it does not replace it.
Source: pp. 329–330.
Confusion pair: Reference/Master Data management vs transaction/tooling.
RMD10-002 — B
Why it wins: A stated goal is complete, consistent, current, authoritative shared Reference and Master Data.
- A: multiple architectures may preserve local SORs.
- B: correct.
- C: Reference Data changes under controlled change.
- D: warehouse-only storage is not required.
Source: pp. 330–332.
Confusion: program goal vs architectural overreach.
RMD10-003 — C
Why it wins: Ownership says shared Reference/Master Data belongs to the enterprise rather than one application or department.
- A: Authority concerns authoritative sources/replication/access.
- B: Controlled Change concerns modification discipline.
- C: correct.
- D: Quality concerns fitness and monitoring.
Source: pp. 331–332.
Confusion: Ownership vs Authority/Change/Quality.
RMD10-004 — D
Why it wins: Shared values/identifiers propagate widely, so changes require impact-aware oversight, reversibility, approval, and communication as appropriate.
- A: controlled does not mean immutable.
- B: authority is not limited to IT.
- C: DQ monitoring remains necessary.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 331–332.
Confusion: Controlled Change vs immutability.
RMD10-005 — A
Why it wins: Order Status values are controlled domain classifications.
- A: Reference Data.
- B: Master Data identifies persistent entities.
- C: Transaction Data is the order/event itself.
- D: Metadata describes the status domain rather than being its values.
Source: pp. 332–334.
Confusion: Reference vs Master vs Transaction vs Metadata.
RMD10-006 — B
Why it wins: A reusable Customer entity is persistent core business identity.
- A: Reference values classify Customer.
- B: correct Master Data.
- C: transactions involve Customer but are events.
- D: definitions/lineage about Customer are Metadata.
Source: pp. 332–334.
Confusion: Master vs other data types.
RMD10-007 — C
Why it wins: The invoice line records a business event/activity.
- A: Reference values may classify the invoice.
- B: Customer/Product masters provide context.
- C: correct Transaction Data.
- D: Metadata describes structure/meaning.
Source: pp. 332–334.
Confusion: Transaction vs Master/Reference/Metadata.
RMD10-008 — D
Why it wins: Source organization, steward, and update schedule describe how a code set is managed.
- A: the codes themselves are Reference Data.
- B: not core entity instances.
- C: no event is being recorded.
- D: correct Metadata.
Source: pp. 334–338.
Confusion: Metadata vs Reference Data.
RMD10-009 — A
Why it wins: Reference Data is generally smaller, less complex, less volatile, and does not require entity resolution.
- A: correct source distinction.
- B: Reference can be internal/proprietary.
- C: it can include crosswalks, taxonomies, ontologies.
- D: taxonomies explicitly contain hierarchies.
Source: pp. 332–334.
Confusion: Reference characteristics vs stereotypes.
RMD10-010 — B
Why it wins: MDM is an operating discipline of people, process, governance, stewardship, DQ, architecture, integration, and technology.
- A: software is often used.
- B: correct.
- C: MDM involves many roles beyond stewards.
- D: MDM focuses Master Data; RDM handles Reference Data.
Source: pp. 340–341.
Confusion: MDM discipline vs software product.
RMD10-011 — C
Why it wins: Reference Data classifies/characterizes other data and can relate internal values to external standards.
- A: transaction state/activity is different.
- B: unique customer identity is Master Data.
- C: correct.
- D: schema descriptions are Metadata.
Source: pp. 334–335.
Confusion: Reference definition vs other data types.
RMD10-012 — D
Why it wins: The simplest Reference structure is a governed value list—typically code + description, optionally definitions.
- A: registry is MDM architecture.
- B: probabilistic matcher is entity-resolution technique.
- C: fact table stores transactions.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 334–335.
Confusion: simple list vs MDM/transaction structures.
RMD10-013 — A
Why it wins: USPS and FIPS are alternative representations of the same state concepts; a cross-reference translates between them.
- A: correct.
- B: Transaction Hub is MDM architecture.
- C: Golden Record is reconciled entity instance.
- D: similarity model resolves entity identity, not controlled code translation.
Source: pp. 335–336.
Confusion: Reference cross-reference vs MDM matching.
RMD10-014 — B
Why it wins: Parent-child classifications at multiple specificity levels are a taxonomy.
- A: simple list has no required hierarchy.
- B: correct.
- C: match-link concerns entity identity.
- D: transaction log records events.
Source: pp. 336–337.
Confusion: taxonomy vs list.
RMD10-015 — C
Why it wins: Ontology represents richer formal concepts and relationships beyond a simple hierarchy.
- A: cross-reference maps equivalents.
- B: flat list is simpler.
- C: correct.
- D: source-ID registry is identity-management concept.
Source: pp. 337–338.
Confusion: ontology vs taxonomy/cross-reference.
RMD10-016 — D
Why it wins: Reference Data should be fit for consumer use; overly fine granularity can reduce quality. Related governed lists can serve different communities.
- A: forced complexity can create errors.
- B: changing data type does not fix granularity.
- C: removing definitions worsens ambiguity.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 335–336.
Confusion: fit-for-purpose Reference design vs forced one-size standardization.
RMD10-017 — A
Why it wins: An internally maintained enterprise status/category set is proprietary Reference Data.
- A: correct.
- B: external standard Reference Data.
- C: Master Data.
- D: Transaction Data.
Source: pp. 338–339.
Confusion: internal vs external Reference Data.