IBM Data and AI Ideas Portal for Customers


This portal is to open public enhancement requests against products and services offered by the IBM Data & AI organization. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).


Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:


Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,


Post your ideas

Post ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,

  1. Post an idea

  2. Upvote ideas that matter most to you

  3. Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea


Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.

ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

IBM Employees should enter Ideas at https://ideas.ibm.com


Add a new idea Subscribe
Status Not under consideration
Workspace Master Data Management
Created by Guest
Created on Aug 18, 2020

RELATED IDEAS

Allow consent to be recorded for Organizations in MDM

Currently, attempts to record consent against an contact in MDM classified as an organization yields the following error:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<TCRMService xmlns="http://www.ibm.com/mdm/schema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.ibm.com/mdm/schema MDMDomains.xsd">

<ResponseControl>

<ResultCode>FATAL</ResultCode>

<ServiceTime>48</ServiceTime>

<DWLControl>

<requesterName>cusadmin</requesterName>

<requesterLanguage>100</requesterLanguage>

<requesterLocale>en</requesterLocale>

<requestID>92345</requestID>

</DWLControl>

</ResponseControl>

<TxResponse>

<RequestType>addConsent</RequestType>

<TxResult>

<ResultCode>FATAL</ResultCode>

<DWLError>

<ComponentType>4472</ComponentType>

<ErrorMessage>The following is not correct: ConsentOwnerId.</ErrorMessage>

<ErrorType>DIERR</ErrorType>

<LanguageCode>100</LanguageCode>

<ReasonCode>50239</ReasonCode>

<Severity>0</Severity>

<Throwable>com.dwl.base.exception.DWLDataInvalidException: [4472 DIERR 50239 The following is not correct: ConsentOwnerId.]</Throwable>

</DWLError>

</TxResult>

</TxResponse>

</TCRMService>

Needed by Date Sep 16, 2020
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Nov 1, 2023

    We are seeing the same issue, is the fix available? it is very important for our organization

    --

    addConsent is not working for organization type ,

    when we pass ENFORCEMENT_TYPE is 0, it is not working, but if we give 1 or 2 it is working

    but ours is physical MDM so we need to pass 0


  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Jun 7, 2021

    Thank you, Ron. I will add this additional requirement to the original that we are keeping track in Aha.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Jun 7, 2021

    A corequisite requirement has surfaced for this work: Organizational structures like certain partnership structures may require each partner to provide consent, giving rise to a need for multiple consent givers on a single consent

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Apr 12, 2021

    Hi Ron,

    Given our priority for IBM Match 360 on Cloud Pak for Data, we cannot guarantee that this RFE will happen in 2021.

    Thank You for your understanding

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Sep 21, 2020

    Below are addtional comments from Ron re the RFE - so we have a complete picture of the requirements:

    In conversation with Raiko, there were a few items that suggested it may be best not to rush the fix:

    1. Your regression identified some inconsistent behavior in error reporting with the fix

    2. Idea MDMSEAE-I-126 “Allow Owner and Giver to reside in different CIFs” should properly be viewed as a co-requisite

    So we agreed to pursue the ENFORCEMENT_TYPE work-around to allow IBM time to solve appropriately. I was given to understand at the time that the fully supported fix would be available in a point release some time in ’21.

    With the work-around we know are missing a referential integrity constraint - which we believe our current code fully mitigates – but we’re concerned we may be missing some (present or future) support from MDM, for example when a party becomes inactive, or is collapsed.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 20, 2020

    RBC has decided not to go with the iFix, but rather use our proposed workaround using Enforcement type 2 (external profiles, no id checking).

By clicking the "Post Comment" or "Submit Idea" button, you are agreeing to the IBM Ideas Portal Terms of Use.
Do not place IBM confidential, company confidential, or personal information into any field.