I normally treat these debates on the paternity of the term "data warehouse" with a joke and a smile and let them go right by.  But Bill Inmon's latest newsletter article is just too factually incorrect to let it go without rebuttal.

In the article, Bill says:
'So let's examine the facts, something that "RAUL634" does not care to take into account.

In the mid 1980s, Barry Devlin, a research associate of IBM in Ireland, wrote an article discussing an "information warehouse." The article was written in the IBM Systems Journal. The article went on to address some vague and generally undefined concepts about the thing called an "information warehouse."'

Bill - please check YOUR facts before going into print. 

My (and Paul Murphy's) 1988 IBM Systems Journal article described an architecture, of which the key component was the "Business Data Warehouse".  It was far from vague, although it was certainly high level.  It introduced and defined many of the concepts that continue to be at the core of the data warehouse today.  Since IBM still owns copyright on the full article, I can't publish it here, but here is the key figure from it, and FACT - it does use the term "data warehouse" and define it with sufficient clarity that most people would accept it as the forerunner of the data warehouse today.

And here is the link to the full document on the IBM website, although you now have to pay to download it.

I can also state as a FACT that I and others within IBM Europe were using the term "data warehouse" internally as early as 1985-86.  However, despite widespread search, I have never found the term used in the public domain before my 1988 paper. 

Furthermore, it is a well-known and easily discoverable FACT that IBM announced the "Information Warehouse" in 1991.

And Bill - if you're really keen on facts - I suggest that you edit your own bio: "Bill is universally recognized as the father of the data warehouse."  By my dictionary, "universally recognized" means that literally everybody accepts the attribution. Clearly, some would disagree...