Who Should Own the Context Layer: Data Teams or AI Teams?

Quick answer: Who should own the context layer: Data teams vs. AI teams?

The context layer is a shared infrastructure layer that transforms raw data into business meaning for AI systems. It captures definitions, relationships, rules, and organizational knowledge that AI agents need to operate reliably. Most successful organizations adopt a federated ownership model where data and AI teams collaborate under CDO leadership.

Key characteristics of effective context layer ownership:

Shared accountability model: Data teams manage semantic infrastructure while AI teams handle agent implementation, with clear interfaces between responsibilities.
CDO executive sponsorship: Chief Data Officers uniquely positioned to bridge data semantics, governance, and AI strategy at the intersection of trust and innovation.
Cross-functional governance: Joint councils establish policies, resolve conflicts, and maintain quality standards for context consumed by both humans and machines.
Domain-specific stewardship: Business domain experts contribute context while central teams provide platforms, standards, and tooling for consistency.
Continuous collaboration loops: Human-in-the-loop feedback mechanisms where AI team discoveries inform data team improvements in context definitions.

Below: what the context layer is, why ownership matters, arguments for data team ownership, arguments for AI team ownership, the emerging federated model and how modern platforms enable collaboration.

Assess Your Context Readiness →Start The Atlan Product Tour

Context layer in enterprise AI: A brief overview

The context layer sits between raw data and AI applications, providing shared business meaning that AI systems need to operate reliably. Its core components include structural, operational, behavioral, and temporal context.

Without context, AI systems operate on guesswork. By delivering context in a machine-readable, governed way at inference time, the context layer ensures AI uses consistent definitions, follows policies, and reasons in line with how the business actually operates.

Why does context layer ownership matter for AI success?

The gap between AI ambition and readiness is widening, with IBM reporting that only 26% of the organizations surveyed in 2025 were confident their data could support new AI-enabled revenue streams.

Fragmented context islands play a huge role in undermining AI success, as enterprises grapple with isolated stores, inconsistent definitions, governance gaps, and duplicated effort.

What is the true cost of fragmented context?

When every team builds its own definitions, rules, and assumptions, context fractures into isolated islands. Teams waste time reconciling conflicting AI outputs, stitching systems together, and reworking logic as inconsistencies surface. Value slows while technical debt compounds.

The greater cost is risk. With no clear owner, context flows from raw data to AI decisions without accountability. Bias goes unchecked, lineage is incomplete, access controls drift, and compliance gaps widen. As AI systems act on this fragmented context, errors propagate automatically and at scale.

How does unified context with well-defined ownership drive AI success?

Context ownership directly determines how AI behaves in production. The context layer defines how agents interpret entities, apply rules, resolve ambiguity, and decide what actions are appropriate. Whoever owns this layer effectively owns the operational blueprint for agentic behavior. Without centralized ownership, agents trained on inconsistent definitions and rules produce unpredictable outcomes, even when models are sound.

Context ownership also protects enterprise data. By governing what context is exposed, to whom, and under what conditions, organizations keep sensitive and proprietary knowledge secure while still enabling AI at scale.

Ultimately, context ownership determines whether AI remains experimental or becomes operational at scale. Clear ownership enforces consistent meaning, lineage, and policy across data and AI systems.

Context layer ownership: The case for data teams

Data teams argue they should own the context layer based on established capabilities, domain expertise, and governance responsibility. Their position rests on several foundations.

Infrastructure and tooling expertise

Data teams built the modern data stack. They understand data modeling, schema design, and integration patterns. They operate data warehouses, manage transformation pipelines, and maintain data catalogs where much context already lives.

This infrastructure expertise translates directly to context layer requirements. Building knowledge graphs, maintaining entity resolution, and managing schema evolution are extensions of data engineering work. Data teams have production experience scaling metadata systems to enterprise volumes.

Modern data platforms also increasingly include context capabilities natively. Snowflake offers semantic views through Cortex. Databricks provides Unity Catalog for metadata management. BigQuery includes semantic models. Data teams already administer these platforms and can naturally extend them for AI context needs.

Governance and compliance accountability

Data governance has traditionally been a data team responsibility, often under CDO leadership. Privacy compliance, security controls, and data quality management sit within data organizations. The context layer extends these responsibilities rather than replacing them.

Governance councils typically include data stewards, data owners, and data quality analysts from data teams. These roles understand regulatory requirements, audit processes, and compliance frameworks. They maintain business glossaries, enforce data policies, and track lineage. Context layer governance builds on this foundation.

Organizations increasingly recognize governance as essential for AI reliability. Data teams’ governance expertise positions them to manage context quality, lineage, and controls.

Deep business context knowledge

Data teams work closely with business stakeholders to understand requirements, translate them into data models, and maintain semantic meaning. They document business rules, capture calculation logic, and resolve definitional conflicts. This accumulated business knowledge is precisely what context layers need.

Analytics engineers, in particular, bridge technical and business domains. They model data using business terminology, build semantic layers for BI tools, and maintain metrics definitions. Their work creates much of the context foundation required by AI agents.

Context layer ownership: The case for AI teams

AI teams counter that they should own context layers because they understand agent requirements, optimize for model performance, and iterate based on production feedback. Their argument emphasizes different priorities.

Understanding agent-specific requirements

AI teams work directly with models and agents. They know what context format models consume most effectively, which retrieval patterns minimize latency, how prompt engineering interacts with context structure, and which metadata actually improves agent performance.

This hands-on experience reveals gaps that data teams might miss. An AI team discovers that their customer service agent needs conversation history context beyond what the data warehouse captures. They find that product recommendation agents require real-time inventory context that batch pipelines don’t provide. Agent requirements drive context architecture.

Modern AI patterns like Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) have specific context needs. RAG implementations require careful context engineering to avoid attention dilution, context poisoning, and relevance cascading failures. AI teams understand these failure modes from production experience.

Rapid iteration and experimentation

AI development involves extensive experimentation. Teams test different context representations, evaluate retrieval strategies, and measure impact on agent accuracy. This iterative process benefits from tight coupling between context infrastructure and AI workloads.

When AI teams own context, they can quickly adjust representations based on model feedback, add new context types as agent capabilities expand, and optimize retrieval performance for specific use cases. Waiting for data team review cycles slows innovation velocity.

AI tools and frameworks increasingly bundle context capabilities. LangChain provides context management abstractions. LlamaIndex offers retrieval optimizations. Vector databases like Pinecone and Chroma focus on AI-specific access patterns. AI teams naturally adopt these tools as part of their stack.

Production feedback loops

AI agents surface context quality issues in production. Users report when agents provide incorrect answers. Monitoring reveals when agents hallucinate due to missing context or produce inconsistent outputs from conflicting definitions.

AI teams observing these failures understand needed improvements. They see which context elements matter most for accuracy, where retrieval strategies fall short, and how context freshness impacts results. This operational feedback should directly inform context layer design and maintenance.

Organizations treating AI as a product benefit from tight feedback loops between production performance and context quality. AI teams positioned closest to users can respond fastest to discovered gaps.

Context layer ownership: Data teams vs. AI teams at a glance

Data teams optimize for consistency, governance, and enterprise scale, while AI teams optimize for performance, iteration speed, and agent effectiveness.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison summarizing key arguments made for data teams vs. AI teams when it comes to context layer ownership.

Aspect	Data teams	AI teams
Primary rationale	Own the systems where context already lives and is governed.	Own the systems where context is consumed and stress-tested.
Core strength	Enterprise-scale data infrastructure and governance.	AI agent performance, retrieval efficiency, and model behavior.
Infrastructure expertise	Build and operate the modern data stack	Build and operate the AI stack
Context foundations	Business definitions, metrics logic, lineage, ownership, access controls.	Retrieval strategies, context formatting, latency optimization, relevance tuning.
Governance & compliance accountability	Accountable for privacy, security, auditability, data quality, and regulatory controls.	Typically consumers of governance policies rather than owners.
Iteration speed	Slower, as change management is structured and involves enterprise-wide stakeholders.	Rapid experimentation driven by model feedback.
Production feedback	Indirect signals via downstream reports and governance metrics.	Direct signals from agent failures, hallucinations, and user feedback.

Who should own the context layer? The emerging consensus is a federated ownership model.

Leading data and AI organizations increasingly adopt federated ownership models rather than centralized control. This approach recognizes that both data and AI teams bring essential capabilities while neither can succeed alone.

Instead of data teams vs. AI teams, opt for a shared responsibility framework

Federated models distribute ownership based on natural capability boundaries.

Data teams own the context platform layer including infrastructure, storage, and integration with enterprise data systems. They manage semantic definitions and business glossaries, establish governance frameworks, maintain data quality, and operate catalog systems.

AI teams own the consumption layer, including agent implementations that query context, retrieval strategies optimized for model performance, prompt engineering that incorporates context, and monitoring that surfaces context quality issues. They provide feedback on what context is needed, measure impact on agent accuracy, and iterate on consumption patterns.

Cross-functional teams own domain context creation. Business stakeholders contribute domain knowledge and verify accuracy. Data stewards ensure consistency with enterprise standards. AI engineers validate that context meets agent requirements.

Appoint the Chief Data Officer as the orchestrator

Chief Data Officers are uniquely positioned to lead federated ownership. They operate at the intersection of data, semantics, and trust. They understand where information lives, what it represents, how it’s created, and how it’s used to make decisions.

The CDO role has evolved from defensive compliance focus to strategic enablement. Deloitte’s 2024 CDO survey found that 72% of CDOs now report into the C-Suite, emphasizing the strategic weight their role carries. As AI becomes embedded in operations, CDOs shift from enabling decisions to ensuring they make sense.

Building a context layer isn’t just an engineering problem, it’s a meaning problem. It requires someone who can connect business language with system architecture and ensure both evolve safely together. Over the past decade, CDOs built data infrastructure that made analytics possible. The next decade is about building context infrastructure that makes AI accountable.

Establish governance councils that bridge teams

Successful federated models establish cross-functional governance councils bringing together data team representatives, AI team representatives, business domain experts, security and compliance officers, and legal counsel when needed.

These councils define shared standards for context quality, resolve conflicts when teams disagree on definitions, review and approve context changes that impact multiple systems, establish policies for context lifecycle management, and measure context layer health through joint metrics.

Regular council cadence, typically bi-weekly or monthly with asynchronous workflows, creates the collaboration structure needed for federated ownership. Clear escalation paths and documented decision authority prevent gridlock when teams disagree.

Pick the right technology to enable federation

Modern platforms make federated ownership practical through unified metadata management, bidirectional synchronization between systems, API access for both data and AI teams, and role-based access control matching organizational structure.

The emergence of context-as-a-service offerings reduces infrastructure burden. Rather than building from scratch, organizations can adopt platforms that handle storage, retrieval, and governance while allowing teams to focus on content quality and consumption optimization.

How modern governance platforms enable collaborative context ownership across data and AI teams

Organizations need unified infrastructure supporting both data and AI team requirements. Modern platforms designed for active metadata management provide this foundation by connecting disparate data infrastructure, enriching assets with business context, and enabling governance at scale.

Unified context across data and AI systems

Leading platforms ingest metadata from over 100 data sources, BI tools, orchestration systems, and AI applications. This breadth ensures context remains unified rather than fragmented across tools. Automated discovery continuously updates the context layer as systems evolve.

Column-level lineage traces data flow from raw sources through transformations to AI training datasets and agent queries. This granular tracking enables impact analysis, showing teams which agents depend on specific context definitions. When context changes, lineage reveals downstream effects.

Active metadata combines technical schemas with usage analytics, data quality metrics, ownership information, and collaborative annotations. This richness provides context beyond what data teams or AI teams could build independently. Both teams contribute their perspectives.

Collaboration features for cross-team context building

Modern platforms embed collaborative workflows directly into context management. Teams discuss definitions within the catalog, resolve ambiguities through threaded conversations, and track decisions over time. Notifications alert stakeholders when relevant context changes.

Approval workflows ensure changes follow governance processes. When an AI team identifies missing context, they can propose additions that data stewards review and approve. When data teams update definitions, AI teams receive notifications to assess impact on agents.

Integration with collaboration tools like Slack and Teams meets teams where they work. Users query context, discuss definitions, and receive alerts without leaving their primary workflows. This embedded approach drives adoption across both data and AI organizations.

Governance controls that scale

Automated policy enforcement applies access controls consistently across the context layer. Role-based permissions ensure teams see context appropriate to their responsibilities. Row-level and column-level security prevent unauthorized access to sensitive information.

Policy frameworks defined once propagate automatically through bidirectional synchronization. Changes made in governance tools reflect immediately in data warehouses, BI platforms, and AI applications. This automation reduces manual coordination overhead for governance councils.

Audit trails track every context access, modification, and deletion. Compliance teams can demonstrate governance controls to regulators. Security teams can investigate suspicious patterns. Both data and AI teams gain visibility into how context is being used.

AI-ready context delivery

Platforms optimized for AI workloads provide semantic search over metadata using vector embeddings. This enables RAG systems to find relevant context even when search terms don’t exactly match metadata. Context retrieval happens at inference speed, supporting millions of daily queries.

MCP server implementations deliver Atlan’s unified context layer natively to AI assistants like ChatGPT, Claude, and Cursor. Developers building custom agents access context through standard APIs. This interoperability prevents vendor lock-in while ensuring consistency.

Context quality monitoring surfaces issues before they impact production agents. Completeness scores show which entities lack sufficient context. Freshness metrics identify stale definitions. Usage analytics reveal which context actually drives agent decisions versus unused definitions that create noise.

Real stories from real customers: How modern teams thrive with a unified context layer

How Workday is building context as culture to power trustworthy AI

“As part of Atlan’s AI Labs, we’re co-building the semantic layers that AI needs with new constructs like context products that can start with an end user’s prompt and include them in the development process. All of the work that we did to get to a shared language amongst people at Workday can be leveraged by AI via Atlan’s MCP server.” - Joe DosSantos, Vice President of Enterprise Data & Analytics, Workday

Learn how Workday turned context as culture

Watch Now →

How Mastercard is engineering context into the fabric of its data with Atlan

“When you’re working with AI, you need contextual data to interpret transactional data at the speed of transaction (within milliseconds). So we have moved from privacy by design to data by design to now context by design. We needed a tool that could scale with us. We chose Atlan, a platform that’s configurable, intuitive, and able to scale with our 100M+ data assets. Atlan’s metadata lakehouse is configurable across all tools and flexible enough to get us to a future state where we keep up with AI, unlock innovation responsibly.” - Andrew Reiskind, Chief Data Officer at Mastercard

See how Mastercard is building context from the start

Watch Now →

Moving forward with context layer ownership across data and AI teams

The context layer represents shared infrastructure that both data and AI teams depend on for success. Organizations that frame ownership as an either/or choice between data teams vs. AI teams miss the fundamental truth that neither can build reliable enterprise AI alone.

The most successful companies adopt federated models where data teams provide platform and governance while AI teams drive consumption and feedback. Chief Data Officers are uniquely positioned to orchestrate this collaboration, bridging data semantics with AI requirements.

Modern governance platforms make federated ownership practical through unified metadata, collaborative workflows, and automated policy enforcement.

As AI becomes embedded in business operations, context layer ownership shifts from a technical question to a strategic imperative requiring executive sponsorship and cross-functional commitment. Atlan enables collaborative context ownership across data and AI teams.

Book a Demo →

FAQs about context layer ownership: Data teams vs. AI teams

1. Who should own the context layer: data teams or AI teams?

Neither team should own the context layer in isolation. The most effective model is federated ownership.

Data teams steward the shared context platform as enterprise infrastructure, ensuring consistent definitions, governance, quality, and security. AI teams own how context is consumed, shaping retrieval, prompts, and agent behavior based on real production needs. Business domains contribute and validate domain-specific context.

The CDO orchestrates this shared responsibility, ensuring consistency, accountability, and alignment as context scales across AI use cases.

Such a federated ownership model prevents fragmentation while still enabling fast, effective AI iteration.

2. Why can’t AI teams own context independently for their agents?

When AI teams own context in isolation, definitions, rules, and access controls diverge across agents. This recreates data silos, increases governance risk, and leads to inconsistent agent behavior at scale.

3. Why can’t data teams own context independently from AI teams?

Data teams may define accurate and governed context, but without AI team input it risks being incomplete or misaligned with how agents actually retrieve, reason over, and apply context in production. AI teams surface agent-specific needs, latency constraints, and failure modes that must shape context design. Ownership without their feedback leads to technically correct but operationally ineffective context.

4. How does context layer ownership relate to broader data mesh architectures?

Data mesh architectures emphasize domain-oriented decentralization with federated governance. Context layer ownership aligns well with mesh principles by treating context as a shared data product that domains contribute to while central teams provide standards and infrastructure. Domain teams own their specific business context while the platform team owns cross-domain consistency and discovery mechanisms.

5. What skills should organizations hire for when building context layer capabilities?

Organizations need a mix of capabilities including data modeling and semantic design expertise, knowledge of AI/ML requirements and RAG architectures, experience with metadata management and data catalogs, governance and compliance background, and business analysis skills to capture domain knowledge. Cross-functional team members who understand both data and AI domains are particularly valuable.

6. What role do business domain experts play in context layer ownership?

Domain experts are essential contributors who provide the actual business knowledge that data and AI teams encode into the context layer. They validate definitions for accuracy, explain business rules and decision logic, resolve conflicts when multiple valid definitions exist, and review AI agent outputs to identify context gaps. Their input ensures context reflects how the business actually operates rather than technical assumptions.

Share this article

Atlan is the next-generation platform for data and AI governance. It is a control plane that stitches together a business's disparate data infrastructure, cataloging and enriching data with business context and security.

Book a Demo Start Tour

Semantic Layers: The Complete Guide for 2026
Context Layer vs. Semantic Layer: What’s the Difference & Which Layer Do You Need for AI Success?
Ontology vs Semantic Layer: Understanding the Difference for AI-Ready Data
Context Graph vs Knowledge Graph: Key Differences for AI
Context Graph: Definition, Architecture, and Implementation Guide
Context Graph vs Ontology: Key Differences for AI
Context Layer 101: Why It’s Crucial for AI
Combining Knowledge Graphs With LLMs: Complete Guide
Context Preparation vs. Data Preparation: Key Differences, Components & Implementation in 2026
What Is an AI Analyst? Definition, Architecture, Use Cases, ROI
What Is Ontology in AI? Key Components and Applications
What Is Conversational Analytics for Business Intelligence?
Data Quality Alerts: Setup, Best Practices & Reducing Fatigue
Active Metadata Management: Powering lineage and observability at scale
Dynamic Metadata Management Explained: Key Aspects, Use Cases & Implementation in 2026
How Metadata Lakehouse Activates Governance & Drives AI Readiness in 2026
Metadata Orchestration: How Does It Drive Governance and Trustworthy AI Outcomes in 2026?
What Is Metadata Analytics & How Does It Work? Concept, Benefits & Use Cases for 2026
Dynamic Metadata Discovery Explained: How It Works, Top Use Cases & Implementation in 2026
Data Lineage Explained: Complete Guide for 2026
Data Observability 101: Definition, Key Elements & Benefits
Automated Data Lineage: Making Lineage Work For Everyone
Gartner Magic Quadrant for Metadata Management Solutions 2025
Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data & Analytics Governance Platforms
Data Lineage Solutions: Capabilities and 2026 Guidance
12 Best Data Catalog Tools in 2026 | A Complete Roundup of Key Capabilities
Data Catalog Examples | Use Cases Across Industries and Implementation Guide
5 Best Data Governance Platforms in 2026 | A Complete Evaluation Guide to Help You Choose
Data Governance Lifecycle: Key Stages, Challenges, Core Capabilities
Data Quality Studio: Native Data Quality in Your Compute Platforms