Skip to main content

AI for Data Catalogs and Governance

5 min read
Data ArchData Eng

Data Arch

AI populates the catalog. You define what 'sensitive' and 'critical' mean.

Data Eng

Use AI for auto-tagging. You verify and maintain the governance rules.

AI for Data Catalogs and Governance

TL;DR

  • AI can infer column types, suggest tags, and draft descriptions from schemas and samples.
  • AI can't define your governance policies or decide what's PII in your jurisdiction.
  • Use AI to fill the catalog. You own the taxonomy, lineage verification, and policy enforcement.

Data catalogs used to be manually maintained. Nobody had time. They rotted. AI can auto-populate metadata at scale. The question: Do you trust it enough to drive governance? Usually the answer is "partially."

What AI Catalog Tools Do

Auto-discovery:

  • Scan schemas. Infer data types, suggest semantic labels ("this looks like an email," "this might be PII").
  • Sample data to improve inference. Useful for initial population.

Lineage inference:

  • Track data flow from logs, job configs, or code. AI can piece together lineage graphs.
  • Never 100% accurate. Manual verification for critical paths.

Natural language search:

  • "Find all tables with customer payment data." — AI parses intent, searches metadata.
  • Depends on good metadata. Garbage in, garbage out.

Policy suggestion:

  • "This column looks like PII. Suggest access policies." — AI proposes. You approve or reject.

What You Still Own

Taxonomy:

  • What tags exist? What do they mean? AI can suggest; you standardize.
  • "Sensitive" might mean different things for finance vs. marketing. You define it.

Lineage verification:

  • AI-inferred lineage is a guess. For compliance-critical flows, verify manually.
  • Document the verification method. "We trust AI lineage for X; we manually verify Y."

Policy definition:

  • Who can access what? Retention rules? AI can enforce; it can't define. That's policy work.

Exception handling:

  • False positives (AI tagged this as PII, it isn't) and false negatives (missed PII). You need a process to correct and feed back.

The Hybrid Model

  • AI: Discovery, tagging, search, draft descriptions.
  • Human: Taxonomy design, policy approval, lineage verification for critical paths, exception review.

Don't let AI drive governance decisions without human checkpoint. Do let AI do the heavy lifting on metadata collection.

Manual process. Repetitive tasks. Limited scale.

Click "With AI" to see the difference →

Quick Check

What remains human when AI automates more of this role?

Do This Next

  1. Audit your current metadata — How much exists? How current? Run an AI discovery pass. What does it find that you didn't have?
  2. Define your core taxonomy — 10–20 tags that matter. Document them. Use AI to suggest application; you verify.
  3. Pick one critical data asset — Verify its lineage manually. Compare to AI-inferred. Document the gaps. That's your improvement roadmap.