From maryv at icpsr.umich.edu Tue Jul 5 10:18:42 2005 From: maryv at icpsr.umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Tue Jul 5 10:18:48 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] GeographicCoverage In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20050630164937.010dd008@po11.mit.edu> References: <000901c57d9c$e72578d0$6501a8c0@JGAGERLT> <5.2.1.1.2.20050630164937.010dd008@po11.mit.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050705101608.0276ea80@icpsr.umich.edu> Kate and others, As I recall, the Geographic Coverage element at the highest level and the Geographic Unit element at the lowest level (in Version 2.0) were equivalent to FGDC elements, so I think there was interest in retaining these two elements/concepts. Mary At 04:49 PM 6/30/2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: >Here are my initial thoughts on this (and I won't be in the phone call >Tuesday). I think it's a helpful start, and particularly like your >distinction between the type of level and the value within it. Couple of >comments/questions: > >1) I like how you make GeographyValues present and required at each level >of geography, but provide different ways to describe it. > >2) I'm not sure I understand the relationship between GeographicCoverage, >IntermediateGeography, and GeographicalUnit. It appears that the latter >two are sub-elements (if that's the right term) of the first, and within >themselves would have multiple fields (some sort of nesting?). > >I have mixed feelings about calling them three different categories; in my >response to Sanda/Mary's email earlier, I wondered if we should have a >single element for geographic level (and then maybe have its relationship >with the others a sort of hierarchical characteristic). I'm just trying >to think about what'd be easiest for users and systems to interpret. And >conceptually, what is the difference between coverage and unit? I know >what the definitions are, but do we want to describe overall geographic >coverage as the highest unit? > >And then what do we do when we have several different types of geography >but aren't exactly in hierarchical relationship with one another; how do >we know which is the lowest unit (e.g. county vs. congressional >district)? I know it's nearly impossible to account for every possible >scenario, but this one makes me wonder. > >3) I wonder if we should require GeographicLevelName. I like the idea of >trying to see if there's a controlled vocabulary for GeographicLevelCode, >to standardize among similar levels but with different names in different >countries (e.g. province vs. state). So let's say that the standardized >term is sub-national (I'm just making that up); wouldn't we also want to >provide users with a way of searching on the term used in that particular >country (i.e. state)? I know there's a balance between thoroughness and >requiring too much, but it's a consideration. > >4) Under GeographyValues, are we missing a place to link to an external >URL w/the codes maintained by an external authority? > >A lot of these are just ideas, and some of my comments are awkward to try >to convey over email, but maybe it'll be material for your discussion Tuesday. > >Kate > >At 01:55 PM 6/30/2005 -0400, J Gager wrote: >>Hello Everyone - >> >>Attached is a general outline of what I had in mind for the Geographic >>Coverage after our discussion on Tuesday. Note that I did not go into >>great detail about the specifics of any fields. The point that I am >>trying to make is that it seems we need two types of identifcation for >>any geographic level: >> >>1. The type of level we are describing - is it a countries, states, >>counties, cities, etc. >>2. The possible values at that level - which may be described by code, >>coordinate, name, or reference a variable in the study. >> >>Feel free to comment via email. >> >>Thanks, >> >>J >> >>_______________________________________________ >>DDI-ADG mailing list >>DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu >>http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg > >___________________________________________ >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@mit.edu >617-253-0787 >_______________________________________________ >DDI-ADG mailing list >DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu >http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg Mary Vardigan Director, Collection Delivery Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) University of Michigan P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 Phone: 734-615-7908 Fax: 734-647-8200 www.icpsr.umich.edu From maryv at icpsr.umich.edu Tue Jul 5 13:41:21 2005 From: maryv at icpsr.umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Tue Jul 5 13:41:27 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Phone call changes and missed calls Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050705133600.02c2cec0@icpsr.umich.edu> Please send any changes in availability for the weekly calls and phone number changes to Sue Hodge (copied on this message) in advance of the Tuesday meetings. Thanks much. Mary Mary Vardigan Director, Collection Delivery Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) University of Michigan P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 Phone: 734-615-7908 Fax: 734-647-8200 www.icpsr.umich.edu From maryv at icpsr.umich.edu Tue Jul 5 16:24:41 2005 From: maryv at icpsr.umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Tue Jul 5 16:24:48 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Minutes from today's meeting Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050705160922.02c05770@icpsr.umich.edu> Some very brief minutes... July 5, 2005 Present: San Cannon, J Gager, Fred Gey, Sanda Ionescu, Mary Vardigan We discussed J's recent proposal for the elements in the Geographic Coverage reusable class. The structure he created would allow for geographic level indicators (e.g., country, state, county, etc.) and also specific values (e.g., United States, Michigan, Washtenaw County) plus their associated codes in a geographic classification system (ISO, FIPS, NUTS, etc.). The structure also has the capability to point to a geographic variable; one may use this variable reference alone, list out all the geographic values, or do both. It was pointed out that listing the values, even if it seems redundant, may be useful for search purposes. Since this geographic structure is a reusable class, we need to bear in mind how it would be used in modules other than what we have commonly called the study description. In terms of the hierarchy of geographic levels, J will discuss with the SRG whether the geographic coverage syntax should be recursive, using the nesting feature, or whether the hierarchy should be indicated through IDREFS with each geographic value having an ID. For the next meeting (July 12), Sanda will "mark up" the sample geography from Use Case #1 (the Voter Registration study) using J's structure. Mary Vardigan Director, Collection Delivery Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) University of Michigan P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 Phone: 734-615-7908 Fax: 734-647-8200 www.icpsr.umich.edu From sandai at icpsr.umich.edu Mon Jul 11 10:24:58 2005 From: sandai at icpsr.umich.edu (Sanda Ionescu) Date: Mon Jul 11 10:25:07 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Sample markup using ICPSR study no 9405 Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050711100838.01daaec0@icpsr.umich.edu> Hi, all. Attached is the attempt at using J's new model for geogCover to markup our old example. Again, it contains some questions that I hope we can clarify. Structurally, I still feel very strongly that we need to be able to describe all levels, from highest to lowest, in a hierarchical manner. Cheers, Sanda. 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DDI-ADGSampleMarkup9405.doc Type: application/msword Size: 25088 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050711/12863c24/DDI-ADGSampleMarkup9405-0001.doc From mcneillh at MIT.EDU Mon Jul 11 11:41:07 2005 From: mcneillh at MIT.EDU (Katherine McNeill-Harman) Date: Mon Jul 11 11:41:27 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Sample markup using ICPSR study no 9405 In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050711100838.01daaec0@icpsr.umich.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20050711110138.01488d90@po11.mit.edu> Sanda, Thanks for your work on this. I have some thoughts on some of your questions. Moreover, I would have marked up information in the study slightly differently, based on my understanding of the meaning of certain elements. I believe that would be a numeric code for a geographic level (I don't know what these are, but just to make something up, 1=world, 2=continent, 3=country, etc.) and would be the textual name of that geographic level (e.g. "country"). As I understand it, these are both describing the level, whereas "United States" is a value rather than a level. Following (and attached) is an example of how I might do it (taking some liberties of making up codes, for the sake of the example). I do echo Sanda's concern about wanted to build in hierarchical relationships, and as I said in my earlier email, I wonder if these three sections (coverage, intermediate, unit) could be integrated: 3 Country United States [I'm not quite clear here whether authority and code are attributes or elements; for simplicity I'm using the latter, but am not sure what's best] ISO us [Following is my attempt at an example of where the values are indicated here (showing how a code would be associated with a name), as opposed to pointing to a particular variable, but that also should be an option] 4 Region US Census Bureau 1 New England US Census Bureau 2 Middle Atlantic [...etc., through all the regions] 5 State US Census Bureau 1 Alabama US Census Bureau 2 Alaska [...etc., through all the states] 6 County US Census Bureau 1 Autauga US Census Bureau 2 Baldwin [...etc., through all the counties] Yet I'm not sure how a given sub-geography code (e.g. county) would be associated with being in a higher level (e.g. state). Maybe this is where some hierarchical relationship comes in. Look forward to talking tomorrow, Kate At 10:24 AM 7/11/2005 -0400, Sanda Ionescu wrote: >Hi, all. > >Attached is the attempt at using J's new model for geogCover to markup our >old example. >Again, it contains some questions that I hope we can clarify. >Structurally, I still feel very strongly that we need to be able to >describe all levels, from highest to lowest, in a hierarchical manner. > >Cheers, >Sanda. > > > >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ >DDI-ADG mailing list >DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu >http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg ___________________________________________ 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@mit.edu 617-253-0787 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DDI-ADGSampleMarkup9405_rev.doc Type: application/msword Size: 27648 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050711/c1bd039f/DDI-ADGSampleMarkup9405_rev-0001.doc From wlt at pop.umn.edu Mon Jul 18 17:17:17 2005 From: wlt at pop.umn.edu (Wendy Thomas) Date: Mon Jul 18 17:17:28 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Comments on Geography Message-ID: Sorry I didn't get a chance to get to this sooner. I decided it would be easiest to just add notations etc to J's spreadsheet. I will only be at the first 30 minutes of the meeting tomorrow due to a conflict. Wendy Wendy L. Thomas Phone: +1 612.624.4389 Data Access Core Director Fax: +1 612.626.8375 Minnesota Population Center Email: wlt@pop.umn.edu University of Minnesota 50 Willey Hall 225 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 18435 bytes Desc: Url : http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050718/7eb0253c/attachment.xlb From j.b.gager at verizon.net Tue Jul 19 10:44:13 2005 From: j.b.gager at verizon.net (J Gager) Date: Tue Jul 19 10:44:47 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] New Geography Spreadsheet Message-ID: <003001c58c70$58285070$6601a8c0@JGAGERLT> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Geography.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 18944 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050719/4fad5480/Geography-0001.xls From sandai at icpsr.umich.edu Tue Jul 19 11:05:42 2005 From: sandai at icpsr.umich.edu (Sanda Ionescu) Date: Tue Jul 19 11:05:47 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] conference call today Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050719110306.01c6ac80@icpsr.umich.edu> Hi, all. There was no conference call initiated today. Sorry, but I have no idea who to contact. Our secretary - who usually takes care of these - seems to be out for the day, and Mary is on vacation. I do not know how to get to the operator (?) who initiates these calls. Sanda. 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 From sandai at icpsr.umich.edu Tue Jul 19 11:12:57 2005 From: sandai at icpsr.umich.edu (Sanda Ionescu) Date: Tue Jul 19 11:13:02 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Just hang on in your offices if you can Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050719111117.01c87278@icpsr.umich.edu> 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 From j.b.gager at verizon.net Tue Jul 19 12:23:11 2005 From: j.b.gager at verizon.net (J Gager) Date: Tue Jul 19 12:23:31 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] ADG Goals - Look at Time Message-ID: <004601c58c7e$284f9800$6601a8c0@JGAGERLT> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ADGGoals.doc Type: application/msword Size: 32256 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050719/e3164bd9/ADGGoals-0001.doc From j.b.gager at verizon.net Tue Jul 19 12:28:11 2005 From: j.b.gager at verizon.net (J Gager) Date: Tue Jul 19 12:28:31 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Latest Geography Structure Message-ID: <005101c58c7e$db6c8f60$6601a8c0@JGAGERLT> Here is the latest work up of the Geography structure, I have worked in Wendy's comments and part of our discussion today. We have decided it is time to wrap this up so that we can move on to the our other tasks - Time and Aggregate Data. The plan is that the geography will continue to be reviewed and reworked between meetings via this email list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050719/41c92302/attachment.html From j.b.gager at verizon.net Tue Jul 19 12:31:51 2005 From: j.b.gager at verizon.net (J Gager) Date: Tue Jul 19 12:32:22 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Latest Geography Structure - Take 2 Message-ID: <005b01c58c7f$61a7cf90$6601a8c0@JGAGERLT> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Geography.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 19456 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050719/cc624660/Geography-0001.xls From sandai at icpsr.umich.edu Thu Jul 21 08:48:38 2005 From: sandai at icpsr.umich.edu (Sanda Ionescu) Date: Thu Jul 21 08:48:44 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] time pieces in V 2.0 Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050721082303.01c91bd0@icpsr.umich.edu> Section 2, Study Description: 2.2.3.1 Tag Library description and examples: Description: The time period to which the data refer. This item reflects the time period covered by the data, not the dates of coding or making documents machine-readable or the dates the data were collected. Also known as span. Use the event attribute to specify "start", "end", or "single" for each date entered. The ISO standard for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) is recommended for use with the "date" attribute. The "cycle" attribute permits specification of the relevant cycle, wave, or round of data. Maps to Dublin Core Coverage element. Inclusion of this element is recommended. Example(s): May 1, 1998 May 31, 1998 2.2.3.2 Description: Contains the date(s) when the data were collected. Use the event attribute to specify "start", "end", or "single" for each date entered. The ISO standard for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) is recommended for use with the "date" attribute. The "cycle" attribute permits specification of the relevant cycle, wave, or round of data. Maps to Dublin Core Coverage element. Inclusion of this element in the codebook is recommended. Example(s): 10 November 1998 2.3.1.1 Description: The time method or time dimension of the data collection. The "method" attribute is included to permit the development of a controlled vocabulary for this element. Example(s): panel survey cross-section trend study time-series 2.3.1.3 Description: For data collected at more than one point in time, the frequency with which the data were collected. The "freq" attribute is included to permit the development of a controlled vocabulary for this element. Example(s): monthly quarterly 4.3 The attribute "temporal" indicates whether the variable relays time-related information. (Currently set as Y|N with N as a default). [Aside from these, of course, we have the various dates in citation, but those are "administrative" rather than study-related information]. Sanda. 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 From maryv at icpsr.umich.edu Mon Jul 25 10:54:51 2005 From: maryv at icpsr.umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Mon Jul 25 10:55:00 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Fwd: Mary -- please forward this to the group prior to the meeting Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050725105408.02e8a308@icpsr.umich.edu> Sorry to be so late in sending this -- you have probably already received it from Fred. Just back from vacation and looking forward to getting back to the Working Group issues... Mary >From: "fgey" >To: >Subject: Mary -- please forward this to the group prior to the meeting >Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:00:02 -0700 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 > >Folks, >Last week I said I would scan the Census Bureaus's Geographic Hierarchy >diagram from their publication I have since found the publication on the >web. > >http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossry2.pdf > >The diagram is on page 25, with an auxillary diagram on page 26 for Indian >Reservations. >Fred > Mary Vardigan Director, Collection Delivery Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) University of Michigan P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 Phone: 734-615-7908 Fax: 734-647-8200 www.icpsr.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050725/6671ce94/attachment.html From maryv at icpsr.umich.edu Mon Jul 25 13:42:39 2005 From: maryv at icpsr.umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Mon Jul 25 13:42:52 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] time pieces in V 2.0 In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050721082303.01c91bd0@icpsr.umich.edu> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20050721082303.01c91bd0@icpsr.umich.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050725133249.03208680@icpsr.umich.edu> Thanks, Sanda. A few questions/comments: * A goal for Version 3.0 is to have a way to specify multiple date ranges in Time Period and Date of Collection. This wasn't possible in Version 2.0. Plus we might want to associate the date ranges with cycles. * Does it make sense to have Time Method as a discrete methodology item or should this be broader to encompass other types of methodologies? Either way, do we want a controlled vocabulary for this? If so, how do we develop it? Ken has done some of this work in compiling the different types of methodologies for ELSST. * Re frequency, this could describe a dataset or a data series. Should it be an element associated with Series information also? * We might also discuss the issues of administrative dates and what our responsibility is in that area. Mary At 08:48 AM 7/21/2005, Sanda Ionescu wrote: >Section 2, Study Description: > >2.2.3.1 > >Tag Library description and examples: >Description: The time period to which the data refer. This item reflects >the time period covered by the data, not the dates of coding or making >documents machine-readable or the dates the data were collected. Also >known as span. Use the event attribute to specify "start", "end", or >"single" for each date entered. The ISO standard for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) is >recommended for use with the "date" attribute. The "cycle" attribute >permits specification of the relevant cycle, wave, or round of data. Maps >to Dublin Core Coverage element. Inclusion of this element is recommended. > >Example(s): >May 1, 1998 >May 31, 1998 > >2.2.3.2 > >Description: Contains the date(s) when the data were collected. Use the >event attribute to specify "start", "end", or "single" for each date >entered. The ISO standard for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) is recommended for use >with the "date" attribute. The "cycle" attribute permits specification of >the relevant cycle, wave, or round of data. Maps to Dublin Core Coverage >element. Inclusion of this element in the codebook is recommended. > >Example(s): >10 November 1998 > > >2.3.1.1 > >Description: The time method or time dimension of the data collection. The >"method" attribute is included to permit the development of a controlled >vocabulary for this element. > >Example(s): >panel survey >cross-section >trend study >time-series > >2.3.1.3 > >Description: For data collected at more than one point in time, the >frequency with which the data were collected. The "freq" attribute is >included to permit the development of a controlled vocabulary for this element. > >Example(s): >monthly >quarterly > >4.3 > >The attribute "temporal" indicates whether the variable relays >time-related information. (Currently set as Y|N with N as a default). > >[Aside from these, of course, we have the various dates in citation, but >those are "administrative" rather than study-related information]. > >Sanda. > > > > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >DDI-ADG mailing list >DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu >http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg Mary Vardigan Director, Collection Delivery Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) University of Michigan P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 Phone: 734-615-7908 Fax: 734-647-8200 www.icpsr.umich.edu From Sandra.A.Cannon at frb.gov Mon Jul 25 08:51:16 2005 From: Sandra.A.Cannon at frb.gov (Sandra.A.Cannon@frb.gov) Date: Mon Jul 25 14:06:07 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Notes from Call Message-ID: Here's what I could capture coherently from the conference call on Tuesday, July 19. I apologize for missing statements or misstatements - it was difficult to follow all the discussions since I missed the previous call. Please let me know what needs added or amended. /san/ On the call (which started at 11:20): J Sanda Wendy Kate Fred San Discussion of Wendy's comments: - Decided geographic time is correct but needs to be added - Bounding box is a search piece for geographic cover. It allows a person or program to determine if a point is in the area covered. - Structural hierarchy issues: over lapping hierarchies cause problems. If you take two or more hierarchies and overlap them then you have a result set not easily addressed. Unique geographic identifier discussion: - Much discussion over what uniquely identifies a geographic reference and what it should be called. Currently it is geographic structure but it was suggested that geographic key might work better since it functions like a key in a database. - Agreed that there should be the ability to either outline values explicitly or use an external source. - An example would be helpful - Fred is going to work on that for the next call. He'll look at study #409 and Kate's markup and see what comes out and then resend his example that he sent only to Mary. Geographic level vs. coverage: - Much discussion over what was previously agreed upon and how to deal with (and whether or not to deal with) coverage of "incomplete" regions (e.g. 40 out of 50 states). I confess that the outcome of this discussion did not make it to my notes. Scheduling: - There are 6 calls left before the September 1st deadline. - Further geographic discussion should be taken offline and the next several calls will concentrate on time. ------------------------------------------------- San Cannon Chief, Economic Information Management Federal Reserve Board Washington DC 20551 (202) 452-3710 scannon@frb.gov From gey at berkeley.edu Tue Jul 19 11:09:44 2005 From: gey at berkeley.edu (Fred Gey) Date: Mon Jul 25 14:06:12 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] conference call today In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050719110306.01c6ac80@icpsr.umich.edu> Message-ID: I was wondering why I didn't receive a call. Was your secretary Suzanne Hodge? I sent her e-mail with my number 510-643-1298 because Ilona is on vacation. Fred Fredric C Gey, PhD Information Scientist UC Data Archive & Technical Assistance (UC DATA) University of California, Berkeley Interests: Social Science Information Systems Cross-language Document Search web page: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/gey.html > -----Original Message----- > From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg- > bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Sanda Ionescu > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:06 AM > To: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu > Subject: [DDI-ADG] conference call today > > Hi, all. > There was no conference call initiated today. > Sorry, but I have no idea who to contact. > Our secretary - who usually takes care of these - seems to be out for the > day, and Mary is on vacation. > I do not know how to get to the operator (?) who initiates these calls. > Sanda. > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > DDI-ADG mailing list > DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu > http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg From sandai at icpsr.umich.edu Mon Jul 25 14:14:08 2005 From: sandai at icpsr.umich.edu (Sanda Ionescu) Date: Mon Jul 25 14:14:17 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] time pieces in V 2.0 In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050725133249.03208680@icpsr.umich.edu> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20050721082303.01c91bd0@icpsr.umich.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20050725133249.03208680@icpsr.umich.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050725140302.01d74ec0@icpsr.umich.edu> Hi. Just one remark - I think multiple ranges could be specified in Version 2.0, by using the attribute "cycle". For example, May 1, 1998 May 31, 1998, then, May 1, 1998 May 25, 1998, the difficulty was that we did not have a controlled vocabulary for the "cycle" attribute, so it was hard to read by software. Sanda. At 01:42 PM 7/25/2005, Mary Vardigan wrote: >Thanks, Sanda. A few questions/comments: > >* A goal for Version 3.0 is to have a way to specify multiple date ranges >in Time Period and Date of Collection. This wasn't possible in Version >2.0. Plus we might want to associate the date ranges with cycles. > >* Does it make sense to have Time Method as a discrete methodology item or >should this be broader to encompass other types of methodologies? Either >way, do we want a controlled vocabulary for this? If so, how do we develop >it? Ken has done some of this work in compiling the different types of >methodologies for ELSST. > >* Re frequency, this could describe a dataset or a data series. Should it >be an element associated with Series information also? > >* We might also discuss the issues of administrative dates and what our >responsibility is in that area. > >Mary > >At 08:48 AM 7/21/2005, Sanda Ionescu wrote: >>Section 2, Study Description: >> >>2.2.3.1 >> >>Tag Library description and examples: >>Description: The time period to which the data refer. This item reflects >>the time period covered by the data, not the dates of coding or making >>documents machine-readable or the dates the data were collected. Also >>known as span. Use the event attribute to specify "start", "end", or >>"single" for each date entered. The ISO standard for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) >>is recommended for use with the "date" attribute. The "cycle" attribute >>permits specification of the relevant cycle, wave, or round of data. Maps >>to Dublin Core Coverage element. Inclusion of this element is recommended. >> >>Example(s): >>May 1, 1998 >>May 31, 1998 >> >>2.2.3.2 >> >>Description: Contains the date(s) when the data were collected. Use the >>event attribute to specify "start", "end", or "single" for each date >>entered. The ISO standard for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) is recommended for use >>with the "date" attribute. The "cycle" attribute permits specification of >>the relevant cycle, wave, or round of data. Maps to Dublin Core Coverage >>element. Inclusion of this element in the codebook is recommended. >> >>Example(s): >>10 November 1998 >> >> >>2.3.1.1 >> >>Description: The time method or time dimension of the data collection. >>The "method" attribute is included to permit the development of a >>controlled vocabulary for this element. >> >>Example(s): >>panel survey >>cross-section >>trend study >>time-series >> >>2.3.1.3 >> >>Description: For data collected at more than one point in time, the >>frequency with which the data were collected. The "freq" attribute is >>included to permit the development of a controlled vocabulary for this element. >> >>Example(s): >>monthly >>quarterly >> >>4.3 >> >>The attribute "temporal" indicates whether the variable relays >>time-related information. (Currently set as Y|N with N as a default). >> >>[Aside from these, of course, we have the various dates in citation, but >>those are "administrative" rather than study-related information]. >> >>Sanda. >> >> >> >> >>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 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>DDI-ADG mailing list >>DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu >>http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg > >Mary Vardigan >Director, Collection Delivery >Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) >University of Michigan >P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 >Phone: 734-615-7908 >Fax: 734-647-8200 >www.icpsr.umich.edu 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 From wlt at pop.umn.edu Mon Jul 25 14:22:13 2005 From: wlt at pop.umn.edu (Wendy Thomas) Date: Mon Jul 25 14:22:26 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] time pieces in V 2.0 In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050725140302.01d74ec0@icpsr.umich.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Just a couple of general comments about time and how it fits into the 3.0 outline. There is the multi-use class of time elements that can be used in any module. There can also be special or specific use time related elements in the individual modules. While I haven't done this, it might be useful to determine which of the current or needed time elements should be in the repeatable class and which are module specific. wendy On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Sanda Ionescu wrote: > Hi. > > Just one remark - I think multiple ranges could be specified in Version > 2.0, by using the attribute "cycle". For example, > > 1")>May 1, 1998 > 1")>May 31, 1998, > > then, > > 2")>May 1, 1998 > 2")>May 25, 1998, > > > the difficulty was that we did not have a controlled vocabulary for the > "cycle" attribute, so it was hard to read by software. > > Sanda. > > > At 01:42 PM 7/25/2005, Mary Vardigan wrote: > >Thanks, Sanda. A few questions/comments: > > > >* A goal for Version 3.0 is to have a way to specify multiple date ranges > >in Time Period and Date of Collection. This wasn't possible in Version > >2.0. Plus we might want to associate the date ranges with cycles. > > > >* Does it make sense to have Time Method as a discrete methodology item or > >should this be broader to encompass other types of methodologies? Either > >way, do we want a controlled vocabulary for this? If so, how do we develop > >it? Ken has done some of this work in compiling the different types of > >methodologies for ELSST. > > > >* Re frequency, this could describe a dataset or a data series. Should it > >be an element associated with Series information also? > > > >* We might also discuss the issues of administrative dates and what our > >responsibility is in that area. > > > >Mary > > > >At 08:48 AM 7/21/2005, Sanda Ionescu wrote: > >>Section 2, Study Description: > >> > >>2.2.3.1 > >> > >>Tag Library description and examples: > >>Description: The time period to which the data refer. This item reflects > >>the time period covered by the data, not the dates of coding or making > >>documents machine-readable or the dates the data were collected. Also > >>known as span. Use the event attribute to specify "start", "end", or > >>"single" for each date entered. The ISO standard for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) > >>is recommended for use with the "date" attribute. The "cycle" attribute > >>permits specification of the relevant cycle, wave, or round of data. Maps > >>to Dublin Core Coverage element. Inclusion of this element is recommended. > >> > >>Example(s): > >>May 1, 1998 > >>May 31, 1998 > >> > >>2.2.3.2 > >> > >>Description: Contains the date(s) when the data were collected. Use the > >>event attribute to specify "start", "end", or "single" for each date > >>entered. The ISO standard for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) is recommended for use > >>with the "date" attribute. The "cycle" attribute permits specification of > >>the relevant cycle, wave, or round of data. Maps to Dublin Core Coverage > >>element. Inclusion of this element in the codebook is recommended. > >> > >>Example(s): > >>10 November 1998 > >> > >> > >>2.3.1.1 > >> > >>Description: The time method or time dimension of the data collection. > >>The "method" attribute is included to permit the development of a > >>controlled vocabulary for this element. > >> > >>Example(s): > >>panel survey > >>cross-section > >>trend study > >>time-series > >> > >>2.3.1.3 > >> > >>Description: For data collected at more than one point in time, the > >>frequency with which the data were collected. The "freq" attribute is > >>included to permit the development of a controlled vocabulary for this element. > >> > >>Example(s): > >>monthly > >>quarterly > >> > >>4.3 > >> > >>The attribute "temporal" indicates whether the variable relays > >>time-related information. (Currently set as Y|N with N as a default). > >> > >>[Aside from these, of course, we have the various dates in citation, but > >>those are "administrative" rather than study-related information]. > >> > >>Sanda. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>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 > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>DDI-ADG mailing list > >>DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu > >>http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg > > > >Mary Vardigan > >Director, Collection Delivery > >Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) > >University of Michigan > >P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 > >Phone: 734-615-7908 > >Fax: 734-647-8200 > >www.icpsr.umich.edu > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > DDI-ADG mailing list > DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu > http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg > Wendy L. Thomas Phone: +1 612.624.4389 Data Access Core Director Fax: +1 612.626.8375 Minnesota Population Center Email: wlt@pop.umn.edu University of Minnesota 50 Willey Hall 225 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 From maryv at icpsr.umich.edu Mon Jul 25 14:59:23 2005 From: maryv at icpsr.umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Mon Jul 25 14:59:36 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] time pieces in V 2.0 In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050725140302.01d74ec0@icpsr.umich.edu> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20050721082303.01c91bd0@icpsr.umich.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20050725133249.03208680@icpsr.umich.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20050725140302.01d74ec0@icpsr.umich.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050725145806.01f66778@icpsr.umich.edu> Sanda, If cycle isn't applicable, is there a way to associate a given start date with a specific end date (in the case of multiple ranges)? Mary At 02:14 PM 7/25/2005, Sanda Ionescu wrote: >Hi. > >Just one remark - I think multiple ranges could be specified in Version >2.0, by using the attribute "cycle". For example, > >1")>May 1, 1998 >1")>May 31, 1998, > >then, > >2")>May 1, 1998 >2")>May 25, 1998, > > >the difficulty was that we did not have a controlled vocabulary for the >"cycle" attribute, so it was hard to read by software. > >Sanda. > > >At 01:42 PM 7/25/2005, Mary Vardigan wrote: >>Thanks, Sanda. A few questions/comments: >> >>* A goal for Version 3.0 is to have a way to specify multiple date ranges >>in Time Period and Date of Collection. This wasn't possible in Version >>2.0. Plus we might want to associate the date ranges with cycles. >> >>* Does it make sense to have Time Method as a discrete methodology item >>or should this be broader to encompass other types of methodologies? >>Either way, do we want a controlled vocabulary for this? If so, how do we >>develop it? Ken has done some of this work in compiling the different >>types of methodologies for ELSST. >> >>* Re frequency, this could describe a dataset or a data series. Should it >>be an element associated with Series information also? >> >>* We might also discuss the issues of administrative dates and what our >>responsibility is in that area. >> >>Mary >> >>At 08:48 AM 7/21/2005, Sanda Ionescu wrote: >>>Section 2, Study Description: >>> >>>2.2.3.1 >>> >>>Tag Library description and examples: >>>Description: The time period to which the data refer. This item reflects >>>the time period covered by the data, not the dates of coding or making >>>documents machine-readable or the dates the data were collected. Also >>>known as span. Use the event attribute to specify "start", "end", or >>>"single" for each date entered. The ISO standard for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) >>>is recommended for use with the "date" attribute. The "cycle" attribute >>>permits specification of the relevant cycle, wave, or round of data. >>>Maps to Dublin Core Coverage element. Inclusion of this element is recommended. >>> >>>Example(s): >>>May 1, 1998 >>>May 31, 1998 >>> >>>2.2.3.2 >>> >>>Description: Contains the date(s) when the data were collected. Use the >>>event attribute to specify "start", "end", or "single" for each date >>>entered. The ISO standard for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) is recommended for use >>>with the "date" attribute. The "cycle" attribute permits specification >>>of the relevant cycle, wave, or round of data. Maps to Dublin Core >>>Coverage element. Inclusion of this element in the codebook is recommended. >>> >>>Example(s): >>>10 November 1998 >>> >>> >>>2.3.1.1 >>> >>>Description: The time method or time dimension of the data collection. >>>The "method" attribute is included to permit the development of a >>>controlled vocabulary for this element. >>> >>>Example(s): >>>panel survey >>>cross-section >>>trend study >>>time-series >>> >>>2.3.1.3 >>> >>>Description: For data collected at more than one point in time, the >>>frequency with which the data were collected. The "freq" attribute is >>>included to permit the development of a controlled vocabulary for this element. >>> >>>Example(s): >>>monthly >>>quarterly >>> >>>4.3 >>> >>>The attribute "temporal" indicates whether the variable relays >>>time-related information. (Currently set as Y|N with N as a default). >>> >>>[Aside from these, of course, we have the various dates in citation, >>>but those are "administrative" rather than study-related information]. >>> >>>Sanda. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>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 >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>DDI-ADG mailing list >>>DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu >>>http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg >> >>Mary Vardigan >>Director, Collection Delivery >>Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) >>University of Michigan >>P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 >>Phone: 734-615-7908 >>Fax: 734-647-8200 >>www.icpsr.umich.edu > > > >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 > Mary Vardigan Director, Collection Delivery Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) University of Michigan P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 Phone: 734-615-7908 Fax: 734-647-8200 www.icpsr.umich.edu From mcneillh at MIT.EDU Mon Jul 25 17:13:21 2005 From: mcneillh at MIT.EDU (Katherine McNeill-Harman) Date: Mon Jul 25 17:13:53 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Latest Geography Structure - Take 2 In-Reply-To: <005b01c58c7f$61a7cf90$6601a8c0@JGAGERLT> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20050725163846.010425f0@po11.mit.edu> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Geography_rev.xls Type: application/octet-stream Size: 18944 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050725/3aadd1b5/Geography_rev-0001.obj From sandai at icpsr.umich.edu Tue Jul 26 09:05:51 2005 From: sandai at icpsr.umich.edu (Sanda Ionescu) Date: Tue Jul 26 09:05:59 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Latest Geography Structure - Take 2 In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20050725163846.010425f0@po11.mit.edu> References: <005b01c58c7f$61a7cf90$6601a8c0@JGAGERLT> <5.2.1.1.2.20050725163846.010425f0@po11.mit.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050726084948.01ad1b10@icpsr.umich.edu> Hi. I agree with what Katherine is proposing, with two "amendments": 1. We should leave in the textual description ("Description") of GeographicCoverage, for those instances where we do not have data at this level, or, even if we do have data, for people who want to spell out the total coverage in plain English. Both values and description should be made optional. 2.If we create yet another container for everything (initially GeographicCoverage was thought of as a container) then the highest "Geography" should be nestable under Geographic Coverage (since we're no longer repeating this level as a Geography.) Cheers, Sanda. p.s. - Last minute changes for today's call - please e-mail me directly: sandai@icpsr.umich.edu. Fred - are you taking the call in Ilona's office, or at another number? At 05:13 PM 7/25/2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: >To continue the geography thread: > >Continuing our discussion last week, I'd suggest two edits to the >spreadsheet, a revised version is attached; throwing out several ideas for >discussion, so look forward to others' reactions/additional ideas: > >1) I do believe we should enable some sort of structured description of >geographic coverage (that is the overall coverage of the study) to enable >machine actionability on that. (e.g. I'm imagining some great search >interface in the future that has fields for both geographic coverage and >geographic level, each of which act on structured metadata) > >It seems we have two options for doing this: > >a) Right now we just have a place in geographic coverage for a textual >description, which provides little/no ability for machine actionability >within that section. However, presumably all overall coverage areas would >also be listed as a geographic level, whether or not there's data >available at that level (hence, the sub-element of Geography to indicate >whether or not that level "HasSummaryData." Each of those can contain >structured GeographyValues. > >b) I would propose the alternative, as I think it's a bit more direct. >I recall us deciding that we would have separate elements for the overall >coverage vs. geographic levels (i.e. those levels at which there's data in >the study). I believe that we said that in the case when the geographic >coverage/overall area is also a level at which there's data available >(e.g. the overall coverage is of a country, but you can also get info. at >the country level, not simply at lower levels like state or province), >that we would repeat the description of that area in both the geographic >coverage and the geographic level elements. > >However, as compared to what's in "a," I would propose only repeating the >overall coverage area in Geography if indeed it is a level at which data >is available (therefore eliminating the for "HasSummaryData," because all >levels in there would have data). Instead, I propose to enable more >structured description of the Geographic Coverage within that section >itself. So I've put in there a place to indicate GeographyValues, >structured information about the coverage of the study (e.g. if it's a >country, the author could insert a standard country code that could be >machine-actionable). I know some people said in the phone conversation >that if we were to do this it should be called something other than >GeographyValues. I put that in, but others may have ideas for a better >name. [Note, now that something like GeographyValues sits w/in >GeographicCoverage, I'm not sure what would be the relationship between >the BoundingBox and the Bounding Polygon that's optional w/in GeographyValues]. > >2) Plus, I wonder about the hierarchical relationships among the elements >in the spreadsheet. Right now everything is under "Geographic Coverage," >when in fact this term is referring to a specific aspect of geography that >to me isn't logically the "parent" (is that the right use of the term?) >over the other things. I would propose one of two alternatives (listed on >sheet 1 and 2 in the attached), and don't know which make more sense >structurally. >a) if we want everything nested under one geographic element (option 1), >then I'd create an additional overall element that's simply a container >for all the others; I've actually named it Geography, b/this seemed like a >logical overall name, and renamed the previous "Geography" >"GeographicLevel," as this seemed a little more descriptive. >b) If there is no need for a top-level element, then I'd flatten it and >put GeographicCoverage and GeographicLevel at the same level in the elements. > >Not having worked much with version 2.0, some of these ideas may be wacky, >but I'll at least put them out there and see what others say. Look >forward to email discussion on this. > >Kate > >At 12:31 PM 7/19/2005 -0400, J Gager wrote: >>Sorry for the previous message - I accidently hit send... >> >>Here is the latest work up of the Geography structure, I have worked in >>Wendy's comments and part of our discussion today. We have decided it is >>time to wrap this up so that we can move on to the our other tasks - Time >>and Aggregate Data. The plan is that the geography will continue to be >>reviewed and reworked between meetings via this email list. We should >>really focus on the definitions, as they are admittedly lacking. Also, >>it would be helpful to have a few use cases described. If there are any >>major issues, we can discuss them at the end of our weekly meetings. >> >>Thanks, >> >>J >> >>_______________________________________________ >>DDI-ADG mailing list >>DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu >>http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg > >___________________________________________ >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@mit.edu >617-253-0787 >_______________________________________________ >DDI-ADG mailing list >DDI-ADG@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 From sandai at icpsr.umich.edu Tue Jul 26 09:09:42 2005 From: sandai at icpsr.umich.edu (Sanda Ionescu) Date: Tue Jul 26 09:09:49 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Latest Geography Structure - Take 2 In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050726084948.01ad1b10@icpsr.umich.edu> References: <005b01c58c7f$61a7cf90$6601a8c0@JGAGERLT> <5.2.1.1.2.20050725163846.010425f0@po11.mit.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20050726084948.01ad1b10@icpsr.umich.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050726090922.01ab5638@icpsr.umich.edu> At 09:05 AM 7/26/2005, Sanda Ionescu wrote: >Hi. >I agree with what Katherine is proposing, with two "amendments": >1. We should leave in the textual description ("Description") of >GeographicCoverage, for those instances where we do not have data at this >level, or, even if we do have data, for people who want to spell out the >total coverage in plain English. Both values and description should be >made optional. >2.If we create yet another container for everything (initially >GeographicCoverage was thought of as a container) then the highest >"Geography" should be nestable under Geographic Coverage (since we're no >longer repeating this level as a Geography.) >Cheers, >Sanda. > >p.s. - Last minute changes for today's call - please e-mail me directly: >sandai@icpsr.umich.edu. Fred - are you taking the call in Ilona's office, >or at another number? > > >At 05:13 PM 7/25/2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: >>To continue the geography thread: >> >>Continuing our discussion last week, I'd suggest two edits to the >>spreadsheet, a revised version is attached; throwing out several ideas >>for discussion, so look forward to others' reactions/additional ideas: >> >>1) I do believe we should enable some sort of structured description of >>geographic coverage (that is the overall coverage of the study) to enable >>machine actionability on that. (e.g. I'm imagining some great search >>interface in the future that has fields for both geographic coverage and >>geographic level, each of which act on structured metadata) >> >>It seems we have two options for doing this: >> >>a) Right now we just have a place in geographic coverage for a textual >>description, which provides little/no ability for machine actionability >>within that section. However, presumably all overall coverage areas >>would also be listed as a geographic level, whether or not there's data >>available at that level (hence, the sub-element of Geography to indicate >>whether or not that level "HasSummaryData." Each of those can contain >>structured GeographyValues. >> >>b) I would propose the alternative, as I think it's a bit more direct. >>I recall us deciding that we would have separate elements for the overall >>coverage vs. geographic levels (i.e. those levels at which there's data >>in the study). I believe that we said that in the case when the >>geographic coverage/overall area is also a level at which there's data >>available (e.g. the overall coverage is of a country, but you can also >>get info. at the country level, not simply at lower levels like state or >>province), that we would repeat the description of that area in both the >>geographic coverage and the geographic level elements. >> >>However, as compared to what's in "a," I would propose only repeating the >>overall coverage area in Geography if indeed it is a level at which data >>is available (therefore eliminating the for "HasSummaryData," because all >>levels in there would have data). Instead, I propose to enable more >>structured description of the Geographic Coverage within that section >>itself. So I've put in there a place to indicate GeographyValues, >>structured information about the coverage of the study (e.g. if it's a >>country, the author could insert a standard country code that could be >>machine-actionable). I know some people said in the phone conversation >>that if we were to do this it should be called something other than >>GeographyValues. I put that in, but others may have ideas for a better >>name. [Note, now that something like GeographyValues sits w/in >>GeographicCoverage, I'm not sure what would be the relationship between >>the BoundingBox and the Bounding Polygon that's optional w/in GeographyValues]. >> >>2) Plus, I wonder about the hierarchical relationships among the elements >>in the spreadsheet. Right now everything is under "Geographic Coverage," >>when in fact this term is referring to a specific aspect of geography >>that to me isn't logically the "parent" (is that the right use of the >>term?) over the other things. I would propose one of two alternatives >>(listed on sheet 1 and 2 in the attached), and don't know which make more >>sense structurally. >>a) if we want everything nested under one geographic element (option 1), >>then I'd create an additional overall element that's simply a container >>for all the others; I've actually named it Geography, b/this seemed like >>a logical overall name, and renamed the previous "Geography" >>"GeographicLevel," as this seemed a little more descriptive. >>b) If there is no need for a top-level element, then I'd flatten it and >>put GeographicCoverage and GeographicLevel at the same level in the elements. >> >>Not having worked much with version 2.0, some of these ideas may be >>wacky, but I'll at least put them out there and see what others >>say. Look forward to email discussion on this. >> >>Kate >> >>At 12:31 PM 7/19/2005 -0400, J Gager wrote: >>>Sorry for the previous message - I accidently hit send... >>> >>>Here is the latest work up of the Geography structure, I have worked in >>>Wendy's comments and part of our discussion today. We have decided it >>>is time to wrap this up so that we can move on to the our other tasks - >>>Time and Aggregate Data. The plan is that the geography will continue >>>to be reviewed and reworked between meetings via this email list. We >>>should really focus on the definitions, as they are admittedly >>>lacking. Also, it would be helpful to have a few use cases >>>described. If there are any major issues, we can discuss them at the >>>end of our weekly meetings. >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>J >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>DDI-ADG mailing list >>>DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu >>>http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg >> >>___________________________________________ >>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@mit.edu >>617-253-0787 >>_______________________________________________ >>DDI-ADG mailing list >>DDI-ADG@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 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 From j.b.gager at gmail.com Mon Jul 25 20:25:56 2005 From: j.b.gager at gmail.com (J Gager) Date: Tue Jul 26 12:16:52 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Latest Geography Structure - Take 2 In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20050725163846.010425f0@po11.mit.edu> Message-ID: <001101c59178$9d057210$6401a8c0@JGAGERLT> My concern with this approach is that it creates a level of ambiguity. I don't like that one would have to repeat a geography if it is both the highest level, and has data. I think the intent of the original approach is that any geography would be defined in one and only one place. The coverage can be identified by determining the highest level (any geography without a parent - or an alternative would be another attribute to indicate a geography is the highest level). Secondly, whether a geography containing data is identified by an attribute or a tag name is arbitrary - they both accomplish the same thing in the end. Anyway, that is my 2 cents. Anyone else want to weigh in? J -----Original Message----- From: Katherine McNeill-Harman [mailto:mcneillh@MIT.EDU] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 5:13 PM To: J Gager; DDI-ADG Cc: gey@berkley.edu Subject: Re: [DDI-ADG] Latest Geography Structure - Take 2 To continue the geography thread: Continuing our discussion last week, I'd suggest two edits to the spreadsheet, a revised version is attached; throwing out several ideas for discussion, so look forward to others' reactions/additional ideas: 1) I do believe we should enable some sort of structured description of geographic coverage (that is the overall coverage of the study) to enable machine actionability on that. (e.g. I'm imagining some great search interface in the future that has fields for both geographic coverage and geographic level, each of which act on structured metadata) It seems we have two options for doing this: a) Right now we just have a place in geographic coverage for a textual description, which provides little/no ability for machine actionability within that section. However, presumably all overall coverage areas would also be listed as a geographic level, whether or not there's data available at that level (hence, the sub-element of Geography to indicate whether or not that level "HasSummaryData." Each of those can contain structured GeographyValues. b) I would propose the alternative, as I think it's a bit more direct. I recall us deciding that we would have separate elements for the overall coverage vs. geographic levels (i.e. those levels at which there's data in the study). I believe that we said that in the case when the geographic coverage/overall area is also a level at which there's data available (e.g. the overall coverage is of a country, but you can also get info. at the country level, not simply at lower levels like state or province), that we would repeat the description of that area in both the geographic coverage and the geographic level elements. However, as compared to what's in "a," I would propose only repeating the overall coverage area in Geography if indeed it is a level at which data is available (therefore eliminating the for "HasSummaryData," because all levels in there would have data). Instead, I propose to enable more structured description of the Geographic Coverage within that section itself. So I've put in there a place to indicate GeographyValues, structured information about the coverage of the study (e.g. if it's a country, the author could insert a standard country code that could be machine-actionable). I know some people said in the phone conversation that if we were to do this it should be called something other than GeographyValues. I put that in, but others may have ideas for a better name. [Note, now that something like GeographyValues sits w/in GeographicCoverage, I'm not sure what would be the relationship between the BoundingBox and the Bounding Polygon that's optional w/in GeographyValues]. 2) Plus, I wonder about the hierarchical relationships among the elements in the spreadsheet. Right now everything is under "Geographic Coverage," when in fact this term is referring to a specific aspect of geography that to me isn't logically the "parent" (is that the right use of the term?) over the other things. I would propose one of two alternatives (listed on sheet 1 and 2 in the attached), and don't know which make more sense structurally. a) if we want everything nested under one geographic element (option 1), then I'd create an additional overall element that's simply a container for all the others; I've actually named it Geography, b/this seemed like a logical overall name, and renamed the previous "Geography" "GeographicLevel," as this seemed a little more descriptive. b) If there is no need for a top-level element, then I'd flatten it and put GeographicCoverage and GeographicLevel at the same level in the elements. Not having worked much with version 2.0, some of these ideas may be wacky, but I'll at least put them out there and see what others say. Look forward to email discussion on this. Kate At 12:31 PM 7/19/2005 -0400, J Gager wrote: Sorry for the previous message - I accidently hit send... Here is the latest work up of the Geography structure, I have worked in Wendy's comments and part of our discussion today. We have decided it is time to wrap this up so that we can move on to the our other tasks - Time and Aggregate Data. The plan is that the geography will continue to be reviewed and reworked between meetings via this email list. We should really focus on the definitions, as they are admittedly lacking. Also, it would be helpful to have a few use cases described. If there are any major issues, we can discuss them at the end of our weekly meetings. Thanks, J _______________________________________________ DDI-ADG mailing list DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg ___________________________________________ 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@mit.edu 617-253-0787 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050725/9e118228/attachment.html From millk at essex.ac.uk Tue Jul 26 12:40:40 2005 From: millk at essex.ac.uk (Miller, Kenneth P) Date: Tue Jul 26 12:41:00 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] time (is on our side) Message-ID: <8839697C62E81B4097C7BFFC8F0E6A0102A789B5@sernt14.essex.ac.uk> Hi This is the relevant (English) part of the METHODOLOGY hierarchy of CESSDA multilingual thesaurus (ELSST). But CESSDA has not adopted it, yet, as the controlled vocabulary of the DDI element . It is based on the Social Research Methodology Thesaurus developed by NIWI (Amsterdam, Netherlands) TIME METHODS (RESEARCH) CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY CROSS-SECTIONAL AD HOC FOLLOW-UP STUDY CROSS-SECTIONAL ONE-TIME STUDY CROSS-SECTIONAL REGULAR STUDY LONGITUDINAL STUDY COHORT STUDY PANEL STUDY TIME SERIES At present the UKDA uses this controlled vocabulary for Cross-sectional (one-time) study Follow-up to cross-sectional study Repeated cross-sectional study Longitudinal/panel/cohort Time Series Best regards Ken From mcneillh at MIT.EDU Wed Jul 27 17:23:33 2005 From: mcneillh at MIT.EDU (Katherine McNeill-Harman) Date: Wed Jul 27 17:23:55 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] survey definitions Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20050727171435.00c09280@po11.mit.edu> Hi everyone, I went through our social science methods reference books and compiled the attached list of different survey definitions. It's a lengthy Word document (if anyone can't read this format, I'll put it in a plain-text email to you). Pages 1-14 are organized by topics, with the different definitions for a topic listed on a single page; pages 15-20 are the definitions organized by their source. Couple of notes: - I included those terms that we'd specifically discussed as well as others that were mentioned or I picked up along the way. - I didn't really do an analysis, but in typing them in they seemed fairly consistent in meaning (even if not in exact wording) - In terms of the likelihood of these changing, several current dictionaries referenced definitions developed a couple of decades ago, so it seems unlikely they'd change very often (maybe more likely that new models would need to be added). 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@mit.edu 617-253-0787 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Survey definitions.doc Type: application/msword Size: 68608 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050727/e1177daf/Surveydefinitions-0001.doc From ilona_e at berkeley.edu Wed Jul 27 17:44:34 2005 From: ilona_e at berkeley.edu (Ilona Einowski) Date: Wed Jul 27 17:48:32 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] survey definitions In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20050727171435.00c09280@po11.mit.edu> Message-ID: Kate - Thanks for the definitions... One thing that occurred to me, again under the umbrella of "what is meant by that term" is the fact that this thing about definitions came up while we were discussing the concept "Method" in relation to time...but it expanded into a discussion of the concepts in Kate's research piece...but what about the concept "Method" as reflected by the terms: > self administered questionnaire > in-person interview > CATI survey > CAPI survey > Administrative records Do these concepts fit someplace in the DDI?...I guess at the Study Level???? Just a thought.... Ilona -----Original Message----- From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Katherine McNeill-Harman Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:24 PM To: DDI-ADG Subject: [DDI-ADG] survey definitions Hi everyone, I went through our social science methods reference books and compiled the attached list of different survey definitions. It's a lengthy Word document (if anyone can't read this format, I'll put it in a plain-text email to you). Pages 1-14 are organized by topics, with the different definitions for a topic listed on a single page; pages 15-20 are the definitions organized by their source. Couple of notes: - I included those terms that we'd specifically discussed as well as others that were mentioned or I picked up along the way. - I didn't really do an analysis, but in typing them in they seemed fairly consistent in meaning (even if not in exact wording) - In terms of the likelihood of these changing, several current dictionaries referenced definitions developed a couple of decades ago, so it seems unlikely they'd change very often (maybe more likely that new models would need to be added). 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@mit.edu 617-253-0787 From millk at essex.ac.uk Thu Jul 28 05:08:48 2005 From: millk at essex.ac.uk (Miller, Kenneth P) Date: Thu Jul 28 05:09:17 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] survey definitions Message-ID: <8839697C62E81B4097C7BFFC8F0E6A0102A78A1F@sernt14.essex.ac.uk> Hi Ilona and Kate Thanks for the list Kate it was very useful. Here is the full SRM/ELSST thesaurus methodology entries (NB not yet adopted by CESSDA). And the controlled vocabulary used by UKDA at present for DDI element . (very similar to the terms under "MODE OF DATA COLLECTION" in the thesaurus) NB red are unique terms in thesaurus blue unique in UKDA listing (mainly qualitative methods) METHODOLOGY |..DATA ANALYSIS | :..CONTENT ANALYSIS | :..STATISTICAL ANALYSIS | :..MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS | :..STATISTICAL INFERENCE | :..ESTIMATION |..DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY | :..FIELD WORK | :..FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION | :..MODE OF DATA COLLECTION | :..CLINICAL MEASUREMENTS (DATA COLLECTION) | :..DIARIES | :..EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENTS (DATA COLLECTION) | :..INTERVIEWS (DATA COLLECTION) | :..FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS | :..CAPI | :..TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS | :..CATI | :..OBSERVATION (DATA COLLECTION) | :..MASS OBSERVATION | :..PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS (DATA COLLECTION) | :..PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS (DATA COLLECTION) | :..SELF-COMPLETION | :..SIMULATION | :..TRANSCRIPTION | :..SAMPLING PROCEDURES | :..CLUSTER SAMPLE | :..ONE-STAGE CLUSTER SAMPLE | :..CONVENIENCE SAMPLE | :..ONE-STAGE STRATIFIED SAMPLE | :..PURPOSIVE SAMPLE | :..QUASI-RANDOM SAMPLE | :..QUOTA SAMPLE | :..RANDOM SAMPLE | :..MULTI-STAGE STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLE | :..SIMPLE RANDOM SAMPLE | :..TOTAL UNIVERSE (NO SAMPLING) | :..VOLUNTEER SAMPLE | :..SURVEYS | :..EXIT POLLS | :..POSTAL SURVEYS | :..PUBLIC OPINION POLLS | :..TIME METHODS (RESEARCH) | :..CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY | :..CROSS-SECTIONAL AD HOC FOLLOW-UP STUDY | :..CROSS-SECTIONAL ONE-TIME STUDY | :..CROSS-SECTIONAL REGULAR STUDY | :..LONGITUDINAL STUDY | :..COHORT STUDY | :..PANEL STUDY | :..TIME SERIES |..HISTORIOGRAPHY |..MODELLING | :..MATHEMATICAL MODELS | :..SIMULATION MODELS UKDA Listing Audio recording Clinical measurements Compilation or synthesis of existing material Diaries Educational measurements Face-to-face interview Focus group Observation Physical measurements Postal survey Psychological measurements Self-completion Simulation Telephone interview Transcription of existing materials Video recording Regards Ken -----Original Message----- From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Ilona Einowski Sent: 27 July 2005 22:45 To: 'Katherine McNeill-Harman'; 'DDI-ADG' Subject: RE: [DDI-ADG] survey definitions Kate - Thanks for the definitions... One thing that occurred to me, again under the umbrella of "what is meant by that term" is the fact that this thing about definitions came up while we were discussing the concept "Method" in relation to time...but it expanded into a discussion of the concepts in Kate's research piece...but what about the concept "Method" as reflected by the terms: > self administered questionnaire > in-person interview > CATI survey > CAPI survey > Administrative records Do these concepts fit someplace in the DDI?...I guess at the Study Level???? Just a thought.... Ilona -----Original Message----- From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Katherine McNeill-Harman Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:24 PM To: DDI-ADG Subject: [DDI-ADG] survey definitions Hi everyone, I went through our social science methods reference books and compiled the attached list of different survey definitions. It's a lengthy Word document (if anyone can't read this format, I'll put it in a plain-text email to you). Pages 1-14 are organized by topics, with the different definitions for a topic listed on a single page; pages 15-20 are the definitions organized by their source. Couple of notes: - I included those terms that we'd specifically discussed as well as others that were mentioned or I picked up along the way. - I didn't really do an analysis, but in typing them in they seemed fairly consistent in meaning (even if not in exact wording) - In terms of the likelihood of these changing, several current dictionaries referenced definitions developed a couple of decades ago, so it seems unlikely they'd change very often (maybe more likely that new models would need to be added). 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@mit.edu 617-253-0787 _______________________________________________ DDI-ADG mailing list DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050728/c5b84723/attachment-0001.html From mcneillh at MIT.EDU Thu Jul 28 09:12:55 2005 From: mcneillh at MIT.EDU (Katherine McNeill-Harman) Date: Thu Jul 28 09:13:12 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] survey definitions In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.2.20050727171435.00c09280@po11.mit.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20050728090847.04863a68@po11.mit.edu> Ilona, I would assume most methodology issues come under the planned DataCollection module in 3.0. I would assume that the instrument documentation group is working on this. It seems like we might want to touch base with them as we delve into methodology-related issues. I don't think anyone's also on that group, but maybe one of the SRG reps. could bring it up at an SRG meeting w/the SRG liaison to that group. Kate At 02:44 PM 7/27/2005 -0700, Ilona Einowski wrote: >Kate - > >Thanks for the definitions... > >One thing that occurred to me, again under the umbrella of "what is meant by >that term" is the fact that this thing about definitions came up while we >were discussing the concept "Method" in relation to time...but it expanded >into a discussion of the concepts in Kate's research piece...but what about >the concept "Method" as reflected by the terms: > > self >administered questionnaire > > in-person >interview > > CATI >survey > > CAPI >survey > > >Administrative records > >Do these concepts fit someplace in the DDI?...I guess at the Study Level???? > >Just a thought.... >Ilona > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu >[mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Katherine >McNeill-Harman >Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:24 PM >To: DDI-ADG >Subject: [DDI-ADG] survey definitions > >Hi everyone, > >I went through our social science methods reference books and compiled the >attached list of different survey definitions. It's a lengthy Word document >(if anyone can't read this format, I'll put it in a plain-text email to >you). Pages 1-14 are organized by topics, with the different definitions >for a topic listed on a single page; pages 15-20 are the definitions >organized by their source. > >Couple of notes: >- I included those terms that we'd specifically discussed as well as others >that were mentioned or I picked up along the way. >- I didn't really do an analysis, but in typing them in they seemed fairly >consistent in meaning (even if not in exact wording) >- In terms of the likelihood of these changing, several current dictionaries >referenced definitions developed a couple of decades ago, so it seems >unlikely they'd change very often (maybe more likely that new models would >need to be added). > >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@mit.edu >617-253-0787 ___________________________________________ 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@mit.edu 617-253-0787 From wlt at pop.umn.edu Thu Jul 28 10:00:26 2005 From: wlt at pop.umn.edu (Wendy Thomas) Date: Thu Jul 28 10:00:36 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] survey definitions In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20050728090847.04863a68@po11.mit.edu> Message-ID: I would like to add that the discussion of methodology and survey types has also been part of the Comparative Data /Families of Files Group and was also discussed in the SRG as it was working on typing groups of files by a matrix of descriptors including time, geography, panel/population, etc. This was in the material from the Edinburgh meeting. I would say that this is a field that will be strongly typed, there will be a controlled vocabulary list and as a basis for that list there has been considerable material collected. If there is something this group can add to it great. However, I guess I'd like to see the focus of "time" discussion on the specifics of making sure we have the needed specific time fields and that these are either linkable to other fields in the DDI through the reusable class of "time" or are located in the specific module if needed in a specialized way. I'm really not trying to rain on this discussion, its just that it is an area that overlaps all of the groups. Wendy On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: > Ilona, > > I would assume most methodology issues come under the planned > DataCollection module in 3.0. I would assume that the instrument > documentation group is working on this. It seems like we might want to > touch base with them as we delve into methodology-related issues. I don't > think anyone's also on that group, but maybe one of the SRG reps. could > bring it up at an SRG meeting w/the SRG liaison to that group. > > Kate > > At 02:44 PM 7/27/2005 -0700, Ilona Einowski wrote: > >Kate - > > > >Thanks for the definitions... > > > >One thing that occurred to me, again under the umbrella of "what is meant by > >that term" is the fact that this thing about definitions came up while we > >were discussing the concept "Method" in relation to time...but it expanded > >into a discussion of the concepts in Kate's research piece...but what about > >the concept "Method" as reflected by the terms: > > > self > >administered questionnaire > > > in-person > >interview > > > CATI > >survey > > > CAPI > >survey > > > > >Administrative records > > > >Do these concepts fit someplace in the DDI?...I guess at the Study Level???? > > > >Just a thought.... > >Ilona > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu > >[mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Katherine > >McNeill-Harman > >Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:24 PM > >To: DDI-ADG > >Subject: [DDI-ADG] survey definitions > > > >Hi everyone, > > > >I went through our social science methods reference books and compiled the > >attached list of different survey definitions. It's a lengthy Word document > >(if anyone can't read this format, I'll put it in a plain-text email to > >you). Pages 1-14 are organized by topics, with the different definitions > >for a topic listed on a single page; pages 15-20 are the definitions > >organized by their source. > > > >Couple of notes: > >- I included those terms that we'd specifically discussed as well as others > >that were mentioned or I picked up along the way. > >- I didn't really do an analysis, but in typing them in they seemed fairly > >consistent in meaning (even if not in exact wording) > >- In terms of the likelihood of these changing, several current dictionaries > >referenced definitions developed a couple of decades ago, so it seems > >unlikely they'd change very often (maybe more likely that new models would > >need to be added). > > > >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@mit.edu > >617-253-0787 > > ___________________________________________ > 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@mit.edu > 617-253-0787 > > _______________________________________________ > DDI-ADG mailing list > DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu > http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg > Wendy L. Thomas Phone: +1 612.624.4389 Data Access Core Director Fax: +1 612.626.8375 Minnesota Population Center Email: wlt@pop.umn.edu University of Minnesota 50 Willey Hall 225 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 From maryv at icpsr.umich.edu Fri Jul 29 07:58:13 2005 From: maryv at icpsr.umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Fri Jul 29 07:58:20 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Version 3.0 approach to controlled vocabularies Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050729075553.028c0f60@icpsr.umich.edu> Hello, everyone. I talked with Wendy earlier this week about the SRG's strategy for handling controlled vocabularies in Version 3.0. Wendy, could you please send something to the whole group about this? Thanks, Mary Mary Vardigan Director, Collection Delivery Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) University of Michigan P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 Phone: 734-615-7908 Fax: 734-647-8200 www.icpsr.umich.edu From wlt at pop.umn.edu Fri Jul 29 12:04:22 2005 From: wlt at pop.umn.edu (Wendy Thomas) Date: Fri Jul 29 12:04:40 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Version 3.0 approach to controlled vocabularies In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050729075553.028c0f60@icpsr.umich.edu> Message-ID: Ok, this is not going to get into the mechanics of the process, but here is what we have settled on in terms of approach. J, please correct anything that looks odd to you. In general our approach is that Version 3.0 must have much stronger typing than earlier versions in order to make it more machine processable. This includes a wider and more consistant use of controlled vocabularies. The SRG has gone through Version 2.0 and identified all locations of current controlled vocabularies and locations where the comments indicate that controlled vocabularies need to be created. (see attachment) We have also paid attention to the which new or additional fields need controlled vocabularies due to the structure of Version 3.0. We are also aware that controlled vocabularies require more flexibility than other elements of the model in order to reflect new developments, odd-ball data etc. Because of this tension between the need for both strong typing and flexibility, we will most likely rely on controlled vocabularies stored external to the scheme. (This is not an all or nothing approach, there will obviously be some controlled vocabs that will be internal to the schema since they are not dynamic in nature...Yes | No comes to mind). Our greatest concern lies in the way controlled vocabularies are developed and maintained. There needs to be a separate, expidited process for managing and maintaining these vocabulary lists. One thought, in terms of getting them going was to put out a base list to the expert committee after the October meeting. This would include all the known locations for controlled language, preliminary lists of words and definitions, and any issues regarding the list that came out of the working groups. The focus on these should be the definitions (are they clear, exhaustive, mutually exclusive, etc.). We don't want to get into a fight over specifc terms. T1, T2, T3 etc. while not intuitive becomes a default option if we get too involved in a game of semantics. The discussions between the SRG and the Comparative WG bore this out. If I say po-tae-to and you say po-tah-to but we have the same definition, we are capable of mapping one to the other and THAT is what's important. All of this means the DDI needs a process for recommending additions to a controlled vocabulary list that can be reviewed and processed quickly. It also needs to accept responsibility for keeping these lists up and available. The detailed contents of these lists can be hashed out after the October SRG meeting with representatives of the working groups. What is important at this point is to a) make sure that all fields requiring controlled vocabulary are identified, b) provide justification if its not clear, and c) provide a preliminary list with term (or T1, T2 etc) and definitions. As you've already noted many of these controlled vocabularies fall into the interest areas of multiple Working Groups so that no one working group is going to end up making the final definitive list. Wendy On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Mary Vardigan wrote: > Hello, everyone. I talked with Wendy earlier this week about the SRG's > strategy for handling controlled vocabularies in Version 3.0. Wendy, could > you please send something to the whole group about this? > > Thanks, > Mary > > Mary Vardigan > Director, Collection Delivery > Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) > University of Michigan > P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 > Phone: 734-615-7908 > Fax: 734-647-8200 > www.icpsr.umich.edu > > _______________________________________________ > DDI-ADG mailing list > DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu > http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg > Wendy L. Thomas Phone: +1 612.624.4389 Data Access Core Director Fax: +1 612.626.8375 Minnesota Population Center Email: wlt@pop.umn.edu University of Minnesota 50 Willey Hall 225 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CONTROLLEDVOCAB.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 33280 bytes Desc: Url : http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20050729/bb318c9a/CONTROLLEDVOCAB-0001.obj From gey at berkeley.edu Fri Jul 29 16:11:30 2005 From: gey at berkeley.edu (Fred Gey) Date: Fri Jul 29 16:13:43 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Notes from Call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi San, Below you reference an ICPSR Study which I am to do geography on as #409. I can't find such a study number. Does anyone have the correct number? Kate was this a study you were working with since your markup is mentioned? Fred .html > -----Original Message----- > From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg- > bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra.A.Cannon@frb.gov > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 5:51 AM > To: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu > Subject: [DDI-ADG] Notes from Call > > > > > > Here's what I could capture coherently from the conference call on Tuesday, > July 19. I apologize for missing statements or misstatements - it was > difficult to follow all the discussions since I missed the previous call. > Please let me know what needs added or amended. > > /san/ > > On the call (which started at 11:20): > J > Sanda > Wendy > Kate > Fred > San > > Discussion of Wendy's comments: > - Decided geographic time is correct but needs to be added > - Bounding box is a search piece for geographic cover. It allows a person > or program to determine if a point is in the area covered. > - Structural hierarchy issues: over lapping hierarchies cause problems. > If you take two or more hierarchies and overlap them then you have a > result > set not easily addressed. > > Unique geographic identifier discussion: > - Much discussion over what uniquely identifies a geographic reference and > what it should be called. Currently it is geographic structure but it was > suggested that geographic key might work better since it functions like a > key in a database. > - Agreed that there should be the ability to either outline values > explicitly or use an external source. > - An example would be helpful - Fred is going to work on that for the > next > call. He'll look at study #409 and Kate's markup and see what comes out > and > then resend his example that he sent only to Mary. > > Geographic level vs. coverage: > - Much discussion over what was previously agreed upon and how to deal > with > (and whether or not to deal with) coverage of "incomplete" regions (e.g. > 40 > out of 50 states). I confess that the outcome of this discussion did not > make it to my notes. > > Scheduling: > - There are 6 calls left before the September 1st deadline. > - Further geographic discussion should be taken offline and the next > several calls will concentrate on time. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > San Cannon > Chief, Economic Information Management > Federal Reserve Board > Washington DC 20551 > (202) 452-3710 > scannon@frb.gov > > _______________________________________________ > DDI-ADG mailing list > DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu > http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg From gey at berkeley.edu Fri Jul 29 16:42:31 2005 From: gey at berkeley.edu (Fred Gey) Date: Fri Jul 29 16:44:48 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] Notes from Call -- FOUND STUDY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Folks, I found the previous e-mails from Sanda and Kate -- study #9405. I am looking at it. Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg- > bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Gey > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 1:12 PM > To: Sandra.A.Cannon@frb.gov; 'Katherine McNeill-Harman' > Cc: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu > Subject: RE: [DDI-ADG] Notes from Call > > Hi San, > Below you reference an ICPSR Study which I am to do geography on as > #409. > I can't find such a study number. Does anyone have the correct number? > Kate was this a study you were working with since your markup is > mentioned? > Fred > > .html > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg- > > bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra.A.Cannon@frb.gov > > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 5:51 AM > > To: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu > > Subject: [DDI-ADG] Notes from Call > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's what I could capture coherently from the conference call on > Tuesday, > > July 19. I apologize for missing statements or misstatements - it was > > difficult to follow all the discussions since I missed the previous call. > > Please let me know what needs added or amended. > > > > /san/ > > > > On the call (which started at 11:20): > > J > > Sanda > > Wendy > > Kate > > Fred > > San > > > > Discussion of Wendy's comments: > > - Decided geographic time is correct but needs to be added > > - Bounding box is a search piece for geographic cover. It allows a > person > > or program to determine if a point is in the area covered. > > - Structural hierarchy issues: over lapping hierarchies cause problems. > > If you take two or more hierarchies and overlap them then you have a > > result > > set not easily addressed. > > > > Unique geographic identifier discussion: > > - Much discussion over what uniquely identifies a geographic reference > and > > what it should be called. Currently it is geographic structure but it > was > > suggested that geographic key might work better since it functions like > a > > key in a database. > > - Agreed that there should be the ability to either outline values > > explicitly or use an external source. > > - An example would be helpful - Fred is going to work on that for the > > next > > call. He'll look at study #409 and Kate's markup and see what comes out > > and > > then resend his example that he sent only to Mary. > > > > Geographic level vs. coverage: > > - Much discussion over what was previously agreed upon and how to deal > > with > > (and whether or not to deal with) coverage of "incomplete" regions (e.g. > > 40 > > out of 50 states). I confess that the outcome of this discussion did > not > > make it to my notes. > > > > Scheduling: > > - There are 6 calls left before the September 1st deadline. > > - Further geographic discussion should be taken offline and the next > > several calls will concentrate on time. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > San Cannon > > Chief, Economic Information Management > > Federal Reserve Board > > Washington DC 20551 > > (202) 452-3710 > > scannon@frb.gov > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DDI-ADG mailing list > > DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu > > http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg > > _______________________________________________ > DDI-ADG mailing list > DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu > http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg