  Data integration is a classical problem in databases, typically decomposed
into schema matching, entity matching and data fusion. To solve the latter, it
is mostly assumed that ground truth can be determined. However, in general, the
data gathering processes in the different sources are imperfect and cannot
provide an accurate merging of values. Thus, in the absence of ways to
determine ground truth, it is important to at least quantify how far from being
internally consistent a dataset is. Hence, we propose definitions of concordant
data and define a discordance metric as a way of measuring disagreement to
improve decision making based on trustworthiness.
  We define the discord measurement problem of numerical attributes in which
given a set of uncertain raw observations or aggregate results (such as
case/hospitalization/death data relevant to COVID-19) and information on the
alignment of different conceptualizations of the same reality (e.g.,
granularities or units), we wish to assess whether the different sources are
concordant, or if not, use the discordance metric to quantify how discordant
they are. We also define a set of algebraic operators to describe the
alignments of different data sources with correctness guarantees, together with
two alternative relational database implementations that reduce the problem to
linear or quadratic programming. These are evaluated against both COVID-19 and
synthetic data, and our experimental results show that discordance measurement
can be performed efficiently in realistic situations.
