[DDI-ADG] Geographic coverage descriptions

[Katherine McNeill-Harman]

I understand that, and am sorry I wasn't clear on that in my email.  Again, 
my question still stands as to how it would be implemented and how we 
manage what seems to me to be a duplication.

Kate

At 10:52 AM 8/30/2005 -0400, Sanda Ionescu wrote:
>Kate,
>Geographic Coverage will NOT have GeographyValues as a subelement.
>In order to use lines 9-23 you would repeat United States under 
><Geography> and then proceed with the rest.
>Sanda.
>
>
>
>At 01:15 PM 8/29/2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote:
>>One question about the new geography spreadsheet.  I was briefed by 
>>someone on the rest of the conversation and understand that the group 
>>chose to go w/this structure to minimize duplication.  However, along 
>>those lines, I want to make sure I understand the description of the 
>>Geographic Coverage, specifically the relationship among line 4: 
>>description, line 22: Geography Code, and line 23: Geography name.
>>
>>We had agreed that Geographic Coverage would be machine actionable; this 
>>would presumably come in line 22 (as part of geography, then geography 
>>values), but then how do the descriptions in line 4 and line 23 
>>relate--are they simply duplicates?  It's my understanding that the group 
>>believes we can't have any duplicates.
>>
>>For example, let's say that we're documenting a study about the United 
>>States, at which there is information available by state and at lower 
>>levels (not aggregated at the level of the U.S.); would the information 
>>be as follows?:
>>
>>4.    Description: United States
>>9.    HasSummaryData: N
>>10.   GeographicLevelCode n/a? (empty, b/in this case it isn't really a 
>>level?)
>>11.   GeographicLevelName n/a? (empty, b/in this case it isn't really a 
>>level?)
>>
>>20.      GeographyCode
>>21.         Authority: ISO
>>22.         Code: 10
>>23.      GeographyName: United States
>>
>>And if in another study there was data at the same level of the 
>>geographic coverage (in this case United States), would it be the same as 
>>the above, but 9 would be Y and 10 and 11 would be filled in?
>>
>>So again, my question is why do we have two places for the textual 
>>description of geographic coverage (4 and 23)?  And if I'm 
>>misinterpreting the role of Geography/Geographic Values, and in fact 
>>these won't be filled in for geographic coverage, we still need to 
>>provide a mechanism for machine actionability.
>>
>>Also, I wonder the relationship between line 3: Bounding Box and line 24: 
>>Bounding Polygon (although I recall they may have separate and important 
>>roles, but since it seems to be a similar issue to the above, thought I'd 
>>check).
>>
>>Kate
>>
>>___________________________________________
>>Katherine McNeill-Harman
>>Data Services Librarian
>>Dewey Library for Management and Social Sciences
>>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>>77 Massachusetts Avenue, E53-100
>>Cambridge, MA 02139
>>mcneillh at mit.edu
>>617-253-0787
>>_______________________________________________
>>DDI-ADG mailing list
>>DDI-ADG at icpsr.umich.edu
>>http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg
>
>
>
>Sanda Ionescu,
>Research Associate
>Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR)
>The University of Michigan
>P.O. Box 1248
>Ann Arbor, MI 48106
>
>Phone: (734) 615-7890
>Fax: (734) 615-7890
>        (734) 647-8200

___________________________________________
Katherine McNeill-Harman
Data Services Librarian
Dewey Library for Management and Social Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue, E53-100
Cambridge, MA 02139
mcneillh at mit.edu
617-253-0787