From mcneillh at MIT.EDU Wed Nov 2 09:50:49 2005 From: mcneillh at MIT.EDU (Katherine McNeill-Harman) Date: Wed Nov 2 09:51:04 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] final copies of proposals and status In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20051018111311.04593008@po11.mit.edu> References: <43550f5b.47ed54d7.46b0.ffffcd62@mx.gmail.com> <5.2.1.1.2.20051018105924.044620b0@po11.mit.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20051102094925.0408c480@po11.mit.edu> J, Now that presentations have been made to the SRG, for our records could you send us the final time proposal (and confirm that the aggregate one from 10/11 is final)? Plus, can we have an update on what happened and next steps? Thanks, Kate At 11:14 AM 10/18/2005 -0400, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: >OK. Then when you have some free time can you send the final time one (I >assume the aggregate one you sent on 10/11 is final) to our group for our >records? > >Thanks > >At 11:06 AM 10/18/2005 -0400, you wrote: >>Nope. We are actually presenting our proposals as I write this. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu >>[mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Katherine >>McNeill-Harman >>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:01 AM >>To: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu >>Subject: [DDI-ADG] phone call today? >> >>Are we having a phone call this morning? Or do I recall that this is the >>week when J is meeting w/SRG? Wondering about the status of the aggregate >>and time proposals, as we haven't yet seen (i.e. been cc'd on) the message >>to the SRG. >> >>Kate >>_______________________________________________ >>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 ___________________________________________ 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 vardigan at umich.edu Wed Nov 2 09:57:29 2005 From: vardigan at umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Wed Nov 2 09:58:45 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] final copies of proposals and status Message-ID: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB3968633A64@isr-mail2.ad.isr.umich.edu> Kate, J, and others, I will be sending a message to the Expert Committee letting them know in a general way about the October SRG meeting and pointing them to the minutes when they are complete. I also need to send the new timeline. Right now all the proposals that the SRG discussed are sitting on Wendy's SRG Web site. We are revising the DDI site to have an Intranet for DDI members, and it would be good to post the final versions of proposals there as well once that is up and running, which should happen in the next week or two. Mary -----Original Message----- From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Katherine McNeill-Harman Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:51 AM To: jgager@umich.edu Cc: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu Subject: [DDI-ADG] final copies of proposals and status J, Now that presentations have been made to the SRG, for our records could you send us the final time proposal (and confirm that the aggregate one from 10/11 is final)? Plus, can we have an update on what happened and next steps? Thanks, Kate At 11:14 AM 10/18/2005 -0400, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: >OK. Then when you have some free time can you send the final time one (I >assume the aggregate one you sent on 10/11 is final) to our group for our >records? > >Thanks > >At 11:06 AM 10/18/2005 -0400, you wrote: >>Nope. We are actually presenting our proposals as I write this. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu >>[mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Katherine >>McNeill-Harman >>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:01 AM >>To: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu >>Subject: [DDI-ADG] phone call today? >> >>Are we having a phone call this morning? Or do I recall that this is the >>week when J is meeting w/SRG? Wondering about the status of the aggregate >>and time proposals, as we haven't yet seen (i.e. been cc'd on) the message >>to the SRG. >> >>Kate >>_______________________________________________ >>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 ___________________________________________ 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 From vardigan at umich.edu Mon Nov 7 16:44:29 2005 From: vardigan at umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Mon Nov 7 16:46:06 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools Message-ID: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB3968633ACD@isr-mail2.ad.isr.umich.edu> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Spatial Data Scenarios.doc Type: application/msword Size: 109056 bytes Desc: Spatial Data Scenarios.doc Url : http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20051107/77521ba7/SpatialDataScenarios-0001.doc From mcneillh at MIT.EDU Mon Nov 7 17:46:24 2005 From: mcneillh at MIT.EDU (Katherine McNeill-Harman) Date: Mon Nov 7 17:46:36 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools In-Reply-To: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB3968633ACD@isr-mail2.ad.isr.um ich.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20051107173518.04173008@po11.mit.edu> Mary, I'm not quite sure whether what we've already proposed covers all they discuss. The Geographic Coverage/Bounding Box was supposed to be the link to FGDC. I guess a main point is the DDI's ability to define a geographic area by either a) a constructed area (e.g. political or other boundary) or b) an arbitrarily-requested geographic area (point, line, user-defined polygon (like agricultural plot in their scenario)). I guess maybe a question is how well we allowed for points or lines (not just polygons). I can't seem to find that explicitly in the geography spreadsheet, but thought I remembered us discussing it. Anyone remember? Kate At 04:44 PM 11/7/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: >Dear ADG Working Group members, > >I just received the attached information about spatial data from the >Spatial Analysis Unit at UNC and am not sure how it fits in with what we >have proposed in terms of geography. Is there anything in this document >that we should pass on to inform the creation of Version 3.0? The group at >UNC is very eager to have the DDI expand to cover spatial data effectively. > >Mary > >---------- >From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM >To: Mary Vardigan >Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > >Mary and others, >Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the Spatial >Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial data >was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the data >effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd want to >know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. Each >scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial >Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component corresponded >to one (or more) records in the database. I should point out, that this >assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could be associate >with a survey. There could be contextual information that's integrated >with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. Census, Land >Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not at the >respondent level. > >Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of >spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for DDI. >If you have any questions or would like more information, or if there's >additional help I can provide, just let me know. > >John > > >-- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >John Spencer >Senior Spatial Analyst >Carolina Population Center >University of North Carolina >123 W. Franklin St. >Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA >919.966.1721 > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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/20051107/fb7ffb43/attachment.html From wlt at pop.umn.edu Mon Nov 7 17:57:15 2005 From: wlt at pop.umn.edu (Wendy Thomas) Date: Mon Nov 7 17:58:20 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20051107173518.04173008@po11.mit.edu> Message-ID: You remember the point | line | polygon debate from discussion of the original proposal for geography submitted at the time the bounding box was added. At that time we tried to get this information into the DDI so that we could indicate the geographic level of the data. I don't remember why it was not accepted but most likely because there was not a collective understanding of how this would be used. coverage areas (whether they consist of point line or polygon data) are polygons. Thats what we were describing. Wendy On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: > Mary, > > I'm not quite sure whether what we've already proposed covers all they > discuss. The Geographic Coverage/Bounding Box was supposed to be the link > to FGDC. I guess a main point is the DDI's ability to define a geographic > area by either a) a constructed area (e.g. political or other boundary) or > b) an arbitrarily-requested geographic area (point, line, user-defined > polygon (like agricultural plot in their scenario)). > > I guess maybe a question is how well we allowed for points or lines (not > just polygons). I can't seem to find that explicitly in the geography > spreadsheet, but thought I remembered us discussing it. Anyone remember? > > Kate > > At 04:44 PM 11/7/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > >Dear ADG Working Group members, > > > >I just received the attached information about spatial data from the > >Spatial Analysis Unit at UNC and am not sure how it fits in with what we > >have proposed in terms of geography. Is there anything in this document > >that we should pass on to inform the creation of Version 3.0? The group at > >UNC is very eager to have the DDI expand to cover spatial data effectively. > > > >Mary > > > >---------- > >From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > >To: Mary Vardigan > >Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > >Mary and others, > >Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the Spatial > >Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial data > >was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the data > >effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd want to > >know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. Each > >scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial > >Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component corresponded > >to one (or more) records in the database. I should point out, that this > >assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could be associate > >with a survey. There could be contextual information that's integrated > >with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. Census, Land > >Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not at the > >respondent level. > > > >Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > >spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for DDI. > >If you have any questions or would like more information, or if there's > >additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > > >John > > > > > >-- > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >John Spencer > >Senior Spatial Analyst > >Carolina Population Center > >University of North Carolina > >123 W. Franklin St. > >Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > >919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 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 vardigan at umich.edu Tue Nov 8 08:14:36 2005 From: vardigan at umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Tue Nov 8 08:16:15 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools Message-ID: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB3968633ACE@isr-mail2.ad.isr.umich.edu> A lot of this document relates to data collection procedures, which will be dealt with in another module, but the point | line | polygon issue seems important. Do you think we should pass this on to Arofan? Mary -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Thomas [mailto:wlt@pop.umn.edu] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:57 PM To: Katherine McNeill-Harman Cc: Mary Vardigan; ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu Subject: Re: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools You remember the point | line | polygon debate from discussion of the original proposal for geography submitted at the time the bounding box was added. At that time we tried to get this information into the DDI so that we could indicate the geographic level of the data. I don't remember why it was not accepted but most likely because there was not a collective understanding of how this would be used. coverage areas (whether they consist of point line or polygon data) are polygons. Thats what we were describing. Wendy On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: > Mary, > > I'm not quite sure whether what we've already proposed covers all they > discuss. The Geographic Coverage/Bounding Box was supposed to be the link > to FGDC. I guess a main point is the DDI's ability to define a geographic > area by either a) a constructed area (e.g. political or other boundary) or > b) an arbitrarily-requested geographic area (point, line, user-defined > polygon (like agricultural plot in their scenario)). > > I guess maybe a question is how well we allowed for points or lines (not > just polygons). I can't seem to find that explicitly in the geography > spreadsheet, but thought I remembered us discussing it. Anyone remember? > > Kate > > At 04:44 PM 11/7/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > >Dear ADG Working Group members, > > > >I just received the attached information about spatial data from the > >Spatial Analysis Unit at UNC and am not sure how it fits in with what we > >have proposed in terms of geography. Is there anything in this document > >that we should pass on to inform the creation of Version 3.0? The group at > >UNC is very eager to have the DDI expand to cover spatial data effectively. > > > >Mary > > > >---------- > >From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > >To: Mary Vardigan > >Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > >Mary and others, > >Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the Spatial > >Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial data > >was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the data > >effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd want to > >know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. Each > >scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial > >Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component corresponded > >to one (or more) records in the database. I should point out, that this > >assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could be associate > >with a survey. There could be contextual information that's integrated > >with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. Census, Land > >Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not at the > >respondent level. > > > >Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > >spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for DDI. > >If you have any questions or would like more information, or if there's > >additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > > >John > > > > > >-- > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >John Spencer > >Senior Spatial Analyst > >Carolina Population Center > >University of North Carolina > >123 W. Franklin St. > >Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > >919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 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 mcneillh at MIT.EDU Tue Nov 8 09:28:34 2005 From: mcneillh at MIT.EDU (Katherine McNeill-Harman) Date: Tue Nov 8 09:28:47 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools In-Reply-To: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB3968633ACE@isr-mail2.ad.isr.um ich.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20051108092829.01514ce8@po11.mit.edu> I do. At 08:14 AM 11/8/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: >A lot of this document relates to data collection procedures, which will >be dealt with in another module, but the point | line | polygon issue >seems important. Do you think we should pass this on to Arofan? > >Mary > >-----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Thomas [mailto:wlt@pop.umn.edu] >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:57 PM >To: Katherine McNeill-Harman >Cc: Mary Vardigan; ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu >Subject: Re: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools > > >You remember the point | line | polygon debate from discussion of the >original proposal for geography submitted at the time the bounding box >was >added. At that time we tried to get this information into the DDI so >that >we could indicate the geographic level of the data. I don't remember why >it was not accepted but most likely because there was not a collective >understanding of how this would be used. > >coverage areas (whether they consist of point line or polygon data) are >polygons. Thats what we were describing. > >Wendy > >On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: > > > Mary, > > > > I'm not quite sure whether what we've already proposed covers all they > > discuss. The Geographic Coverage/Bounding Box was supposed to be the >link > > to FGDC. I guess a main point is the DDI's ability to define a >geographic > > area by either a) a constructed area (e.g. political or other >boundary) or > > b) an arbitrarily-requested geographic area (point, line, user-defined > > polygon (like agricultural plot in their scenario)). > > > > I guess maybe a question is how well we allowed for points or lines >(not > > just polygons). I can't seem to find that explicitly in the geography > > spreadsheet, but thought I remembered us discussing it. Anyone >remember? > > > > Kate > > > > At 04:44 PM 11/7/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > >Dear ADG Working Group members, > > > > > >I just received the attached information about spatial data from the > > >Spatial Analysis Unit at UNC and am not sure how it fits in with what >we > > >have proposed in terms of geography. Is there anything in this >document > > >that we should pass on to inform the creation of Version 3.0? The >group at > > >UNC is very eager to have the DDI expand to cover spatial data >effectively. > > > > > >Mary > > > > > >---------- > > >From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > > >To: Mary Vardigan > > >Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > > > > >Mary and others, > > >Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the >Spatial > > >Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial >data > > >was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the data > > >effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd >want to > > >know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. Each > > >scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial > > >Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component >corresponded > > >to one (or more) records in the database. I should point out, that >this > > >assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could be >associate > > >with a survey. There could be contextual information that's >integrated > > >with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. Census, Land > > >Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not at the > > >respondent level. > > > > > >Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > > >spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for >DDI. > > >If you have any questions or would like more information, or if >there's > > >additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > >-- > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >John Spencer > > >Senior Spatial Analyst > > >Carolina Population Center > > >University of North Carolina > > >123 W. Franklin St. > > >Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > >919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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 > >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 ___________________________________________ 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 atle.alvheim at nsd.uib.no Tue Nov 8 09:20:38 2005 From: atle.alvheim at nsd.uib.no (Atle Alvheim) Date: Tue Nov 8 09:38:50 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools In-Reply-To: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB3968633ACE@isr-mail2.ad.isr.um ich.edu> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.2.20051108144400.02563e20@POP.uib.no> Maybe we should use it as an opportunity to test what has been specified so far. They line up three specific scenarios or actual data collection situations They show situations where point-oriented data are relevant, as data-carrying units (below study level), although one situation (plot-boundaries) are a bit more tricky, is it a point, a polygon or a line ? As Mary points out, we can disregard the data collection information and test if we have a good enough specification for the spatial oriented information. Atle At 08:14 08.11.2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: >A lot of this document relates to data collection procedures, which will >be dealt with in another module, but the point | line | polygon issue >seems important. Do you think we should pass this on to Arofan? > >Mary > >-----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Thomas [mailto:wlt@pop.umn.edu] >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:57 PM >To: Katherine McNeill-Harman >Cc: Mary Vardigan; ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu >Subject: Re: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools > > >You remember the point | line | polygon debate from discussion of the >original proposal for geography submitted at the time the bounding box >was >added. At that time we tried to get this information into the DDI so >that >we could indicate the geographic level of the data. I don't remember why >it was not accepted but most likely because there was not a collective >understanding of how this would be used. > >coverage areas (whether they consist of point line or polygon data) are >polygons. Thats what we were describing. > >Wendy > >On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: > > > Mary, > > > > I'm not quite sure whether what we've already proposed covers all they > > discuss. The Geographic Coverage/Bounding Box was supposed to be the >link > > to FGDC. I guess a main point is the DDI's ability to define a >geographic > > area by either a) a constructed area (e.g. political or other >boundary) or > > b) an arbitrarily-requested geographic area (point, line, user-defined > > polygon (like agricultural plot in their scenario)). > > > > I guess maybe a question is how well we allowed for points or lines >(not > > just polygons). I can't seem to find that explicitly in the geography > > spreadsheet, but thought I remembered us discussing it. Anyone >remember? > > > > Kate > > > > At 04:44 PM 11/7/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > >Dear ADG Working Group members, > > > > > >I just received the attached information about spatial data from the > > >Spatial Analysis Unit at UNC and am not sure how it fits in with what >we > > >have proposed in terms of geography. Is there anything in this >document > > >that we should pass on to inform the creation of Version 3.0? The >group at > > >UNC is very eager to have the DDI expand to cover spatial data >effectively. > > > > > >Mary > > > > > >---------- > > >From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > > >To: Mary Vardigan > > >Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > > > > >Mary and others, > > >Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the >Spatial > > >Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial >data > > >was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the data > > >effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd >want to > > >know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. Each > > >scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial > > >Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component >corresponded > > >to one (or more) records in the database. I should point out, that >this > > >assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could be >associate > > >with a survey. There could be contextual information that's >integrated > > >with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. Census, Land > > >Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not at the > > >respondent level. > > > > > >Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > > >spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for >DDI. > > >If you have any questions or would like more information, or if >there's > > >additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > >-- > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >John Spencer > > >Senior Spatial Analyst > > >Carolina Population Center > > >University of North Carolina > > >123 W. Franklin St. > > >Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > >919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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 > >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 > > >_______________________________________________ >DDI-ADG mailing list >DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu >http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg From wlt at pop.umn.edu Tue Nov 8 10:42:59 2005 From: wlt at pop.umn.edu (Wendy Thomas) Date: Tue Nov 8 10:43:31 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools In-Reply-To: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB3968633ACE@isr-mail2.ad.isr.umich.edu> Message-ID: J and I are doing some cleanup and fill-in. I'll incorporate it into that. It will be easier for Arofan to get all of this as a package that in parts. Wendy On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Mary Vardigan wrote: > A lot of this document relates to data collection procedures, which will > be dealt with in another module, but the point | line | polygon issue > seems important. Do you think we should pass this on to Arofan? > > Mary > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wendy Thomas [mailto:wlt@pop.umn.edu] > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:57 PM > To: Katherine McNeill-Harman > Cc: Mary Vardigan; ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu > Subject: Re: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools > > > You remember the point | line | polygon debate from discussion of the > original proposal for geography submitted at the time the bounding box > was > added. At that time we tried to get this information into the DDI so > that > we could indicate the geographic level of the data. I don't remember why > it was not accepted but most likely because there was not a collective > understanding of how this would be used. > > coverage areas (whether they consist of point line or polygon data) are > polygons. Thats what we were describing. > > Wendy > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: > > > Mary, > > > > I'm not quite sure whether what we've already proposed covers all they > > discuss. The Geographic Coverage/Bounding Box was supposed to be the > link > > to FGDC. I guess a main point is the DDI's ability to define a > geographic > > area by either a) a constructed area (e.g. political or other > boundary) or > > b) an arbitrarily-requested geographic area (point, line, user-defined > > polygon (like agricultural plot in their scenario)). > > > > I guess maybe a question is how well we allowed for points or lines > (not > > just polygons). I can't seem to find that explicitly in the geography > > spreadsheet, but thought I remembered us discussing it. Anyone > remember? > > > > Kate > > > > At 04:44 PM 11/7/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > >Dear ADG Working Group members, > > > > > >I just received the attached information about spatial data from the > > >Spatial Analysis Unit at UNC and am not sure how it fits in with what > we > > >have proposed in terms of geography. Is there anything in this > document > > >that we should pass on to inform the creation of Version 3.0? The > group at > > >UNC is very eager to have the DDI expand to cover spatial data > effectively. > > > > > >Mary > > > > > >---------- > > >From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > > >To: Mary Vardigan > > >Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > > > > >Mary and others, > > >Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the > Spatial > > >Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial > data > > >was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the data > > >effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd > want to > > >know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. Each > > >scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial > > >Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component > corresponded > > >to one (or more) records in the database. I should point out, that > this > > >assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could be > associate > > >with a survey. There could be contextual information that's > integrated > > >with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. Census, Land > > >Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not at the > > >respondent level. > > > > > >Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > > >spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for > DDI. > > >If you have any questions or would like more information, or if > there's > > >additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > >-- > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >John Spencer > > >Senior Spatial Analyst > > >Carolina Population Center > > >University of North Carolina > > >123 W. Franklin St. > > >Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > >919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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 > > 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 > 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 mcneillh at MIT.EDU Tue Nov 8 12:26:46 2005 From: mcneillh at MIT.EDU (Katherine McNeill-Harman) Date: Tue Nov 8 12:26:56 2005 Subject: Fwd: RE: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20051108122621.00c205c0@po11.mit.edu> I think she meant this to go to the group but didn't "reply all." >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >From: "Ilona Einowski" >To: "'Katherine McNeill-Harman'" >Subject: RE: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools >Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:05:03 -0800 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 >Thread-Index: AcXkcMrPP1R1E+TuSVeicJysb5+kuAAFZG6g >X-Spam-Score: -2.6 >X-Spam-Flag: NO >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 > > >I just gave this all a quick read - will delve into it more deeply later >today - but I definitely think this should go to Arofan. > >Ilona >-----Original Message----- >From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu >[mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Katherine >McNeill-Harman >Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 6:29 AM >To: Mary Vardigan; Wendy Thomas >Cc: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu >Subject: RE: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools > >I do. > >At 08:14 AM 11/8/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: > >A lot of this document relates to data collection procedures, which will > >be dealt with in another module, but the point | line | polygon issue > >seems important. Do you think we should pass this on to Arofan? > > > >Mary > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Wendy Thomas [mailto:wlt@pop.umn.edu] > >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:57 PM > >To: Katherine McNeill-Harman > >Cc: Mary Vardigan; ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu > >Subject: Re: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools > > > > > >You remember the point | line | polygon debate from discussion of the > >original proposal for geography submitted at the time the bounding box > >was > >added. At that time we tried to get this information into the DDI so > >that > >we could indicate the geographic level of the data. I don't remember why > >it was not accepted but most likely because there was not a collective > >understanding of how this would be used. > > > >coverage areas (whether they consist of point line or polygon data) are > >polygons. Thats what we were describing. > > > >Wendy > > > >On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: > > > > > Mary, > > > > > > I'm not quite sure whether what we've already proposed covers all they > > > discuss. The Geographic Coverage/Bounding Box was supposed to be the > >link > > > to FGDC. I guess a main point is the DDI's ability to define a > >geographic > > > area by either a) a constructed area (e.g. political or other > >boundary) or > > > b) an arbitrarily-requested geographic area (point, line, user-defined > > > polygon (like agricultural plot in their scenario)). > > > > > > I guess maybe a question is how well we allowed for points or lines > >(not > > > just polygons). I can't seem to find that explicitly in the geography > > > spreadsheet, but thought I remembered us discussing it. Anyone > >remember? > > > > > > Kate > > > > > > At 04:44 PM 11/7/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > > > >Dear ADG Working Group members, > > > > > > > >I just received the attached information about spatial data from the > > > >Spatial Analysis Unit at UNC and am not sure how it fits in with what > >we > > > >have proposed in terms of geography. Is there anything in this > >document > > > >that we should pass on to inform the creation of Version 3.0? The > >group at > > > >UNC is very eager to have the DDI expand to cover spatial data > >effectively. > > > > > > > >Mary > > > > > > > >---------- > > > >From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > > >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > > > >To: Mary Vardigan > > > >Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Mary and others, > > > >Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the > >Spatial > > > >Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial > >data > > > >was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the data > > > >effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd > >want to > > > >know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. Each > > > >scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial > > > >Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component > >corresponded > > > >to one (or more) records in the database. I should point out, that > >this > > > >assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could be > >associate > > > >with a survey. There could be contextual information that's > >integrated > > > >with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. Census, Land > > > >Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not at the > > > >respondent level. > > > > > > > >Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > > > >spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for > >DDI. > > > >If you have any questions or would like more information, or if > >there's > > > >additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >John Spencer > > > >Senior Spatial Analyst > > > >Carolina Population Center > > > >University of North Carolina > > > >123 W. Franklin St. > > > >Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > > >919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >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 > > > >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 > >___________________________________________ >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 ___________________________________________ 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 Atle.Alvheim at nsd.uib.no Tue Nov 8 15:15:19 2005 From: Atle.Alvheim at nsd.uib.no (Atle.Alvheim@nsd.uib.no) Date: Tue Nov 8 15:15:33 2005 Subject: Fwd: RE: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20051108122621.00c205c0@po11.mit.edu> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20051108122621.00c205c0@po11.mit.edu> Message-ID: <1131480919.4371075797570@webmail.uib.no> Do we have a clear understanding of the differences between the study level (that is where DDI 2.0 put coverage, bounding box, etc) and data recorded in the file (their GPS data) ? To me there seems to be several things here. One is that they are recording data, through their GPS measurements, it is down at level 4 in DDI2. Another thing is that some of these data are more complicated than others, in a line we probably have to relate points to each other. Do anybody know about any well-written material on this ? Atle Quoting Katherine McNeill-Harman : > I think she meant this to go to the group but didn't "reply all." > > >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 > >From: "Ilona Einowski" > >To: "'Katherine McNeill-Harman'" > >Subject: RE: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools > >Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:05:03 -0800 > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 > >Thread-Index: AcXkcMrPP1R1E+TuSVeicJysb5+kuAAFZG6g > >X-Spam-Score: -2.6 > >X-Spam-Flag: NO > >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 > > > > > >I just gave this all a quick read - will delve into it more deeply later > >today - but I definitely think this should go to Arofan. > > > >Ilona > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu > >[mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Katherine > >McNeill-Harman > >Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 6:29 AM > >To: Mary Vardigan; Wendy Thomas > >Cc: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu > >Subject: RE: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools > > > >I do. > > > >At 08:14 AM 11/8/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > >A lot of this document relates to data collection procedures, which will > > >be dealt with in another module, but the point | line | polygon issue > > >seems important. Do you think we should pass this on to Arofan? > > > > > >Mary > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Wendy Thomas [mailto:wlt@pop.umn.edu] > > >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:57 PM > > >To: Katherine McNeill-Harman > > >Cc: Mary Vardigan; ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu > > >Subject: Re: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > >You remember the point | line | polygon debate from discussion of the > > >original proposal for geography submitted at the time the bounding box > > >was > > >added. At that time we tried to get this information into the DDI so > > >that > > >we could indicate the geographic level of the data. I don't remember why > > >it was not accepted but most likely because there was not a collective > > >understanding of how this would be used. > > > > > >coverage areas (whether they consist of point line or polygon data) are > > >polygons. Thats what we were describing. > > > > > >Wendy > > > > > >On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Katherine McNeill-Harman wrote: > > > > > > > Mary, > > > > > > > > I'm not quite sure whether what we've already proposed covers all they > > > > discuss. The Geographic Coverage/Bounding Box was supposed to be the > > >link > > > > to FGDC. I guess a main point is the DDI's ability to define a > > >geographic > > > > area by either a) a constructed area (e.g. political or other > > >boundary) or > > > > b) an arbitrarily-requested geographic area (point, line, user-defined > > > > polygon (like agricultural plot in their scenario)). > > > > > > > > I guess maybe a question is how well we allowed for points or lines > > >(not > > > > just polygons). I can't seem to find that explicitly in the geography > > > > spreadsheet, but thought I remembered us discussing it. Anyone > > >remember? > > > > > > > > Kate > > > > > > > > At 04:44 PM 11/7/2005 -0500, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dear ADG Working Group members, > > > > > > > > > >I just received the attached information about spatial data from the > > > > >Spatial Analysis Unit at UNC and am not sure how it fits in with what > > >we > > > > >have proposed in terms of geography. Is there anything in this > > >document > > > > >that we should pass on to inform the creation of Version 3.0? The > > >group at > > > > >UNC is very eager to have the DDI expand to cover spatial data > > >effectively. > > > > > > > > > >Mary > > > > > > > > > >---------- > > > > >From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > > > >Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > > > > >To: Mary Vardigan > > > > >Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Mary and others, > > > > >Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the > > >Spatial > > > > >Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial > > >data > > > > >was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the data > > > > >effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd > > >want to > > > > >know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. Each > > > > >scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial > > > > >Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component > > >corresponded > > > > >to one (or more) records in the database. I should point out, that > > >this > > > > >assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could be > > >associate > > > > >with a survey. There could be contextual information that's > > >integrated > > > > >with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. Census, Land > > > > >Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not at the > > > > >respondent level. > > > > > > > > > >Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > > > > >spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for > > >DDI. > > > > >If you have any questions or would like more information, or if > > >there's > > > > >additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > > > > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > >John Spencer > > > > >Senior Spatial Analyst > > > > >Carolina Population Center > > > > >University of North Carolina > > > > >123 W. Franklin St. > > > > >Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > > > >919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > >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 > > > > > >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 > > > >___________________________________________ > >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 > > ___________________________________________ > 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 > From wlt at pop.umn.edu Tue Nov 8 16:57:07 2005 From: wlt at pop.umn.edu (Wendy Thomas) Date: Tue Nov 8 16:57:31 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] UNC document Message-ID: After reading this through it does seem like the vast majority of the information items noted are in the collection methodology section. After looking at the work that was done by the various working groups and the content of DDI version 2.0, the SRG concluded that significant work needed to be done on the structure of items currently in section 2 of the DDI (study description and methodology). The need for improvement in these sections touches on all types of data and should be conceptualized and approached in a unified way. For that reason, major restructuring of this section (aside from the instrumentation piece) will be scheduled for 3.x. In fact, it looks like a lot of what they want is already in the DDI but only as PCDATA buckets. It would be interesting to note what special needs they have in each area and whether those need to be machine-actionable or just captured. That said, the spacial data requirements here are not that complex and many are not unique to geographic based collection. We have addressed many of the temporal pieces and the availability of reusable classes on agents and roles should address some additional points. The main geographic items are: 1) identifying the type of geography expressed by an observation (point, line, or polygon) 2) uniquely identifying that within the observation 3) linking it to an appropriate geographic boundary file (if required) To address each in turn: 1) refer to FGDC/ISO to obtain a controlled vocabulary list of geographic types (there is also circle and arc that I know of) and provide an element that allows identification of the most descrete geographic type 2) This can currently be done. A variable (or 2 variables) can be used to identify the long/lat of a point thereby identifying it uniquely. A line is simply a start and end point. A polygon is commonly linked to a geographic file by its identifier (code or name). If you have unique polygones such as self determined plots, it is best to describe the polygon using a geography based system (FGDC/ISO etc) providing a unique identifer to each polygon and then using that identify in the data record as a link. 3) see 2 or am I missing something in this? 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 From ilona_e at berkeley.edu Tue Nov 8 19:41:01 2005 From: ilona_e at berkeley.edu (Ilona Einowski) Date: Tue Nov 8 19:41:15 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] UNC document In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007701c5e4c6$4237d520$3e01a8c0@ucdc103ie> Dear all (I'm SURE I did "Reply All" this time...) After another look at this it seems to me that we have discussed most of these issues. I think there needs to be an agreement as to which elements go in which section of the DDI. Section 2 (study description and methodology) could handle some of these elements but as I reread John's Project descriptions it occurred to me that there are some questions....whether we need to answer those questions right now is another matter... We could assume that some of these elements might apply to the entire study. For example, for "Collection personnel" could we assume you would start and end the study with the same company or group of surveyors? ...seems logical, and that would apply to the entire dataset and would belong up in Section 2.... But what about the element "Field collection description/limitations" where he talks about difficulty getting GPS signal lock due to tree cover or high buildings...that could vary for these agricultural plots or for the residential locations...some plots or houses would be easy to lock on, others would be difficult. In that case, this element would need to be associated with each particular plot or residence location. Same thing with Field collection dates...on a particular study you might be able to just give the range of dates at the study level but for some agricultural plots where the survey took place over a period of several days or weeks, it might be important to know that there was a heavy rain storm on a particular date which "changed" the appearance of the crops... I'm sure we can come up with additional wrinkles but this is just to say that I think what we have already covers most cases...we already aware of the fact that we needed to build in flexibility. ...just my 2 cents... Ilona -----Original Message----- From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Wendy Thomas Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 1:57 PM To: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu Subject: [DDI-ADG] UNC document After reading this through it does seem like the vast majority of the information items noted are in the collection methodology section. After looking at the work that was done by the various working groups and the content of DDI version 2.0, the SRG concluded that significant work needed to be done on the structure of items currently in section 2 of the DDI (study description and methodology). The need for improvement in these sections touches on all types of data and should be conceptualized and approached in a unified way. For that reason, major restructuring of this section (aside from the instrumentation piece) will be scheduled for 3.x. In fact, it looks like a lot of what they want is already in the DDI but only as PCDATA buckets. It would be interesting to note what special needs they have in each area and whether those need to be machine-actionable or just captured. That said, the spacial data requirements here are not that complex and many are not unique to geographic based collection. We have addressed many of the temporal pieces and the availability of reusable classes on agents and roles should address some additional points. The main geographic items are: 1) identifying the type of geography expressed by an observation (point, line, or polygon) 2) uniquely identifying that within the observation 3) linking it to an appropriate geographic boundary file (if required) To address each in turn: 1) refer to FGDC/ISO to obtain a controlled vocabulary list of geographic types (there is also circle and arc that I know of) and provide an element that allows identification of the most descrete geographic type 2) This can currently be done. A variable (or 2 variables) can be used to identify the long/lat of a point thereby identifying it uniquely. A line is simply a start and end point. A polygon is commonly linked to a geographic file by its identifier (code or name). If you have unique polygones such as self determined plots, it is best to describe the polygon using a geography based system (FGDC/ISO etc) providing a unique identifer to each polygon and then using that identify in the data record as a link. 3) see 2 or am I missing something in this? 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 _______________________________________________ DDI-ADG mailing list DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg From mcneillh at MIT.EDU Wed Nov 9 09:52:33 2005 From: mcneillh at MIT.EDU (Katherine McNeill-Harman) Date: Wed Nov 9 09:52:52 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] UNC document In-Reply-To: <007701c5e4c6$4237d520$3e01a8c0@ucdc103ie> References: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20051109094828.01679350@po11.mit.edu> Good points. Although I imagine (but don't know where it fits in for sure) that this structure (the ability to refer to collection issues at the variable--or even response--level) is already built into the model for 3.0. Similar issues would apply to a survey, where "Field collection description/limitations" might be analogous to, in a survey, missing values (e.g. respondent refused to answer question) and Field collection dates to the fact that a survey is administered during a time period (e.g. a month), but not each one will be on the same day. I think we've provided a structure for these, but some things will need to be decided by the study's author (e.g. what sort of missing values codes to allow, to what level of granularity to represent collection dates, etc.). Kate At 04:41 PM 11/8/2005 -0800, Ilona Einowski wrote: >Dear all (I'm SURE I did "Reply All" this time...) > >After another look at this it seems to me that we have discussed most of >these issues. > >I think there needs to be an agreement as to which elements go in which >section of the DDI. Section 2 (study description and methodology) could >handle some of these elements but as I reread John's Project descriptions it >occurred to me that there are some questions....whether we need to answer >those questions right now is another matter... > >We could assume that some of these elements might apply to the entire study. > > >For example, for "Collection personnel" could we assume you would start and >end the study with the same company or group of surveyors? ...seems logical, >and that would apply to the entire dataset and would belong up in Section >2.... > >But what about the element "Field collection description/limitations" where >he talks about difficulty getting GPS signal lock due to tree cover or high >buildings...that could vary for these agricultural plots or for the >residential locations...some plots or houses would be easy to lock on, >others would be difficult. In that case, this element would need to be >associated with each particular plot or residence location. > >Same thing with Field collection dates...on a particular study you might be >able to just give the range of dates at the study level but for some >agricultural plots where the survey took place over a period of several days >or weeks, it might be important to know that there was a heavy rain storm on >a particular date which "changed" the appearance of the crops... > >I'm sure we can come up with additional wrinkles but this is just to say >that I think what we have already covers most cases...we already aware of >the fact that we needed to build in flexibility. > > >...just my 2 cents... > >Ilona > >-----Original Message----- >From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu >[mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Wendy Thomas >Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 1:57 PM >To: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu >Subject: [DDI-ADG] UNC document > >After reading this through it does seem like the vast majority of the >information items noted are in the collection methodology section. After >looking at the work that was done by the various working groups and the >content of DDI version 2.0, the SRG concluded that significant work needed >to be done on the structure of items currently in section 2 of the DDI >(study description and methodology). The need for improvement in these >sections touches on all types of data and should be conceptualized and >approached in a unified way. For that reason, major restructuring of this >section (aside from the instrumentation piece) will be scheduled for 3.x. > >In fact, it looks like a lot of what they want is already in the DDI but >only as PCDATA buckets. It would be interesting to note what special needs >they have in each area and whether those need to be machine-actionable or >just captured. > >That said, the spacial data requirements here are not that complex and >many are not unique to geographic based collection. We have addressed many >of the temporal pieces and the availability of reusable classes on agents >and roles should address some additional points. > >The main geographic items are: > >1) identifying the type of geography expressed by an observation (point, >line, or polygon) >2) uniquely identifying that within the observation >3) linking it to an appropriate geographic boundary file (if required) > >To address each in turn: > >1) refer to FGDC/ISO to obtain a controlled vocabulary list of geographic >types (there is also circle and arc that I know of) and provide an element >that allows identification of the most descrete geographic type > >2) This can currently be done. A variable (or 2 variables) can be used to >identify the long/lat of a point thereby identifying it uniquely. A line >is simply a start and end point. A polygon is commonly linked to a >geographic file by its identifier (code or name). If you have unique >polygones such as self determined plots, it is best to describe the >polygon using a geography based system (FGDC/ISO etc) providing a unique >identifer to each polygon and then using that identify in the data record >as a link. > >3) see 2 > >or am I missing something in this? > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 ___________________________________________ 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 vardigan at umich.edu Wed Nov 9 10:44:18 2005 From: vardigan at umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Wed Nov 9 10:44:27 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] UNC document Message-ID: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB3968633AF1@isr-mail2.ad.isr.umich.edu> Wendy and others, This sounds right to me. I think I will get in touch with John again to ask about the machine-actionability issue. Mary -----Original Message----- From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Wendy Thomas Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 4:57 PM To: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu Subject: [DDI-ADG] UNC document After reading this through it does seem like the vast majority of the information items noted are in the collection methodology section. After looking at the work that was done by the various working groups and the content of DDI version 2.0, the SRG concluded that significant work needed to be done on the structure of items currently in section 2 of the DDI (study description and methodology). The need for improvement in these sections touches on all types of data and should be conceptualized and approached in a unified way. For that reason, major restructuring of this section (aside from the instrumentation piece) will be scheduled for 3.x. In fact, it looks like a lot of what they want is already in the DDI but only as PCDATA buckets. It would be interesting to note what special needs they have in each area and whether those need to be machine-actionable or just captured. That said, the spacial data requirements here are not that complex and many are not unique to geographic based collection. We have addressed many of the temporal pieces and the availability of reusable classes on agents and roles should address some additional points. The main geographic items are: 1) identifying the type of geography expressed by an observation (point, line, or polygon) 2) uniquely identifying that within the observation 3) linking it to an appropriate geographic boundary file (if required) To address each in turn: 1) refer to FGDC/ISO to obtain a controlled vocabulary list of geographic types (there is also circle and arc that I know of) and provide an element that allows identification of the most descrete geographic type 2) This can currently be done. A variable (or 2 variables) can be used to identify the long/lat of a point thereby identifying it uniquely. A line is simply a start and end point. A polygon is commonly linked to a geographic file by its identifier (code or name). If you have unique polygones such as self determined plots, it is best to describe the polygon using a geography based system (FGDC/ISO etc) providing a unique identifer to each polygon and then using that identify in the data record as a link. 3) see 2 or am I missing something in this? 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 _______________________________________________ DDI-ADG mailing list DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg From vardigan at umich.edu Wed Nov 9 14:50:03 2005 From: vardigan at umich.edu (Mary Vardigan) Date: Wed Nov 9 14:50:13 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools Message-ID: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB3968633AFA@isr-mail2.ad.isr.umich.edu> ________________________________ From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:08 PM To: Mary Vardigan Subject: Re: Survey Research tools Mary, For the most part, I think the information would be stored in a text field. The one exception that I can think of is the spatial primitive descriptions. Those will be either point, line or polygons. John Mary Vardigan wrote: John, The DDI Working Group on geography has been discussing your document and was wondering if you have requirements for "machine-actionability" and typing on any of your information elements. It is of course easy to set that up for dates, but less clear for some of the other elements. Could you live with much of this just being included as text (for example, field collection description/limitations seems as if it would almost always be a text field). Or would you want controlled vocabularies for some elements like field collection protocols? If the latter, are there standard sources that we could link to for the vocabularies? Any other thoughts you may have on this are welcomed. We found your document very useful. Regards, Mary ________________________________ From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM To: Mary Vardigan Cc: john_spencer@unc.edu; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; edv@unc.edu; phil_bardsley@unc.edu; Beth-Ellen Pennell Subject: Re: Survey Research tools Mary and others, Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the Spatial Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial data was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the data effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd want to know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. Each scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component corresponded to one (or more) records in the database. I should point out, that this assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could be associate with a survey. There could be contextual information that's integrated with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. Census, Land Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not at the respondent level. Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for DDI. If you have any questions or would like more information, or if there's additional help I can provide, just let me know. John -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John Spencer Senior Spatial Analyst Carolina Population Center University of North Carolina 123 W. Franklin St. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA 919.966.1721 Mary Vardigan wrote: John, Thank you so much for your reply about spatial data and the DDI. We are in the midst of compiling requirements for Version 3.0 of the DDI, and we are very much interested in treating geographic and spatial data in a more robust way in the new version. It would be great if you could send me a copy of your document on spatial data and survey research, even if it isn't intended to be a set of proposed tags. As you mention, just knowing the right questions to think about is important. Thank you so much for offering your expertise in this area. Regards, Mary ________________________________ From: Beth-Ellen Pennell Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:49 PM To: spence2@email.unc.edu; Phil Bardsley Cc: Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; Ed Van Duinen; John Spencer; Mary Vardigan Subject: RE: Survey Research tools John -- thank-you for this. I have cc:d Mary Vardigan who heads the DDI effort. Best, Beth-Ellen ________________________________ From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] Sent: Thu 11/3/2005 3:38 PM To: Phil Bardsley Cc: Beth-Ellen Pennell; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; Ed Van Duinen; John Spencer Subject: Re: Survey Research tools Greetings all, I wanted to follow-up on our discussion on the inclusion of spatial data in DDI, and send, as requested, a brief paragraph about the unique needs of spatial data. As we mentioned on the phone, there's a lot of information about spatial data that's vital to know before it can be used most effectively. That's true for all types of spatial data, whether it's a latitude and longitude coordinate collected using a GPS receiver or contextual information obtained from census or other source. For instance, knowing the coordinate system and datum of the coordinate is essential. In addition, other information such as error correction method employed for GPS coordinates or the offset employed by the geocoding service are key pieces of information that permit the spatial data to be used accurately. These are just a couple of examples, but there are others. In fact, enough examples that we think incorporating tags in DDI v.3 that accommodate the unique needs of spatial data would be a tremendous advancement in the functionality of DDI. If you'd like more information or details just let us know. We have developed a document which outlines some of the scenarios of how spatial data can be included in survey research and what information about spatial data is important to know about each scenario.Its not a set of proposed tags, but it should illustrate some of the questions that we ask and would like to know when we use spatial data. If it would be helpful we can provide it. John -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John Spencer Senior Spatial Analyst Carolina Population Center University of North Carolina 123 W. Franklin St. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA 919.966.1721 Phil Bardsley wrote: Hi Beth-Ellen et al., It was great talking with you, too. The more people we talk with about this idea, the more people we find who are working on the same sort of tools. We will certainly plan to attend IASSIST. Meanwhile, we'd like to contact the NCHS folks and learn more about their product. If you can recommend someone to talk with there, we'd appreciate it. I'll forward your proposal for DDI v. 3 to Phil Schumm at the University of Chicago, whom I mentioned in our conversation. His group may have some useful ideas to contribute. Thanks again for taking the time to talk with us. Phil Beth-Ellen Pennell wrote: Dear Phil: It was great talking to you all this week about your project. I have talked with Mary Vardigan who directs the overall DDI project for ICPSR. I have also cc:'d her on this message. Mary said that the plan is to have version 3 of the DDI ready for public comment at the end of May when the IASSIST conference is held in Ann Arbor (which we encourage you to attend -- excellent way to meet folks working in this area). The public comment period will be for about two months. Plans to advertise/promote are still in preliminary stages. Ideas are welcome. Mary is happy to discuss this further or answer any questions you might have. Good luck with your project and please keep in touch. Best Regards, Beth-Ellen -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John Spencer Senior Spatial Analyst Carolina Population Center University of North Carolina 123 W. Franklin St. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA 919.966.1721 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-adg/attachments/20051109/042c1f08/attachment-0001.html From wlt at pop.umn.edu Wed Nov 9 14:59:29 2005 From: wlt at pop.umn.edu (Wendy Thomas) Date: Wed Nov 9 15:00:03 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools In-Reply-To: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB3968633AFA@isr-mail2.ad.isr.umich.edu> Message-ID: re: point line polygon You may want to go back and look at what was originally proposed for this from the original geography workgroup created in the previous DDI structure. The group consisted of a number of well known geographers as well as myself and Peter Granda. In that sense its been vetted as doing what was required by the geographers. wendy On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:08 PM > To: Mary Vardigan > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > Mary, > For the most part, I think the information would be stored in a text > field. The one exception that I can think of is the spatial primitive > descriptions. Those will be either point, line or polygons. > > John > > Mary Vardigan wrote: > > John, > > > > The DDI Working Group on geography has been discussing your document and > was wondering if you have requirements for "machine-actionability" and > typing on any of your information elements. It is of course easy to set > that up for dates, but less clear for some of the other elements. Could > you live with much of this just being included as text (for example, > field collection description/limitations seems as if it would almost > always be a text field). Or would you want controlled vocabularies for > some elements like field collection protocols? If the latter, are there > standard sources that we could link to for the vocabularies? > > > > Any other thoughts you may have on this are welcomed. We found your > document very useful. > > > > Regards, > > Mary > > > > ________________________________ > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > To: Mary Vardigan > Cc: john_spencer@unc.edu; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; > edv@unc.edu; phil_bardsley@unc.edu; Beth-Ellen Pennell > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > Mary and others, > Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the Spatial > Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial > data was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the > data effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd > want to know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. > Each scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial > Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component > corresponded to one (or more) records in the database. I should point > out, that this assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could > be associate with a survey. There could be contextual information that's > integrated with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. > Census, Land Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not > at the respondent level. > > Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for > DDI. If you have any questions or would like more information, or if > there's additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > John > > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John Spencer > Senior Spatial Analyst > Carolina Population Center > University of North Carolina > 123 W. Franklin St. > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > 919.966.1721 > > > > Mary Vardigan wrote: > > John, > > > > Thank you so much for your reply about spatial data and the DDI. We are > in the midst of compiling requirements for Version 3.0 of the DDI, and > we are very much interested in treating geographic and spatial data in a > more robust way in the new version. It would be great if you could send > me a copy of your document on spatial data and survey research, even if > it isn't intended to be a set of proposed tags. As you mention, just > knowing the right questions to think about is important. Thank you so > much for offering your expertise in this area. > > > > Regards, > > Mary > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Beth-Ellen Pennell > Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:49 PM > To: spence2@email.unc.edu; Phil Bardsley > Cc: Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; Ed Van Duinen; John Spencer; > Mary Vardigan > Subject: RE: Survey Research tools > > > > John -- thank-you for this. I have cc:d Mary Vardigan who heads the DDI > effort. > > Best, > > > > Beth-Ellen > > ________________________________ > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > Sent: Thu 11/3/2005 3:38 PM > To: Phil Bardsley > Cc: Beth-Ellen Pennell; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; Ed Van > Duinen; John Spencer > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > Greetings all, > I wanted to follow-up on our discussion on the inclusion of spatial data > in DDI, and send, as requested, a brief paragraph about the unique needs > of spatial data. As we mentioned on the phone, there's a lot of > information about spatial data that's vital to know before it can be > used most effectively. That's true for all types of spatial data, > whether it's a latitude and longitude coordinate collected using a GPS > receiver or contextual information obtained from census or other source. > For instance, knowing the coordinate system and datum of the coordinate > is essential. In addition, other information such as error correction > method employed for GPS coordinates or the offset employed by the > geocoding service are key pieces of information that permit the spatial > data to be used accurately. These are just a couple of examples, but > there are others. In fact, enough examples that we think incorporating > tags in DDI v.3 that accommodate the unique needs of spatial data would > be a tremendous advancement in the functionality of DDI. > > > If you'd like more information or details just let us know. We have > developed a document which outlines some of the scenarios of how spatial > data can be included in survey research and what information about > spatial data is important to know about each scenario.Its not a set of > proposed tags, but it should illustrate some of the questions that we > ask and would like to know when we use spatial data. If it would be > helpful we can provide it. > > John > > > > > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John Spencer > Senior Spatial Analyst > Carolina Population Center > University of North Carolina > 123 W. Franklin St. > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > 919.966.1721 > > > > Phil Bardsley wrote: > > Hi Beth-Ellen et al., > > It was great talking with you, too. The more people we talk with about > this idea, the more people we find who are working on the same sort of > tools. We will certainly plan to attend IASSIST. Meanwhile, we'd like to > contact the NCHS folks and learn more about their product. If you can > recommend someone to talk with there, we'd appreciate it. > > I'll forward your proposal for DDI v. 3 to Phil Schumm at the University > of Chicago, whom I mentioned in our conversation. His group may have > some useful ideas to contribute. > > Thanks again for taking the time to talk with us. > > Phil > > Beth-Ellen Pennell wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Phil: > > It was great talking to you all this week about your project. I have > talked with Mary Vardigan who directs the overall DDI project for ICPSR. > > I have also cc:'d her on this message. Mary said that the plan is to > have version 3 of the DDI ready for public comment at the end of May > when the IASSIST conference is held in Ann Arbor (which we encourage you > > to attend -- excellent way to meet folks working in this area). The > public comment period will be for about two months. Plans to > advertise/promote are still in preliminary stages. Ideas are welcome. > Mary is happy to discuss this further or answer any questions you might > have. > > Good luck with your project and please keep in touch. > > Best Regards, > > Beth-Ellen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John Spencer > Senior Spatial Analyst > Carolina Population Center > University of North Carolina > 123 W. Franklin St. > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > 919.966.1721 > 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 wlt at pop.umn.edu Wed Nov 9 15:05:40 2005 From: wlt at pop.umn.edu (Wendy Thomas) Date: Wed Nov 9 15:06:11 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: to save you looking up the original proposal On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Wendy Thomas wrote: > re: point line polygon > You may want to go back and look at what was originally proposed for this > from the original geography workgroup created in the previous DDI > structure. The group consisted of a number of well known geographers as > well as myself and Peter Granda. In that sense its been vetted as doing > what was required by the geographers. > > wendy > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:08 PM > > To: Mary Vardigan > > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > Mary, > > For the most part, I think the information would be stored in a text > > field. The one exception that I can think of is the spatial primitive > > descriptions. Those will be either point, line or polygons. > > > > John > > > > Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > John, > > > > > > > > The DDI Working Group on geography has been discussing your document and > > was wondering if you have requirements for "machine-actionability" and > > typing on any of your information elements. It is of course easy to set > > that up for dates, but less clear for some of the other elements. Could > > you live with much of this just being included as text (for example, > > field collection description/limitations seems as if it would almost > > always be a text field). Or would you want controlled vocabularies for > > some elements like field collection protocols? If the latter, are there > > standard sources that we could link to for the vocabularies? > > > > > > > > Any other thoughts you may have on this are welcomed. We found your > > document very useful. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Mary > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > > To: Mary Vardigan > > Cc: john_spencer@unc.edu; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; > > edv@unc.edu; phil_bardsley@unc.edu; Beth-Ellen Pennell > > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > Mary and others, > > Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the Spatial > > Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial > > data was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the > > data effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd > > want to know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. > > Each scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial > > Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component > > corresponded to one (or more) records in the database. I should point > > out, that this assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could > > be associate with a survey. There could be contextual information that's > > integrated with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. > > Census, Land Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not > > at the respondent level. > > > > Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > > spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for > > DDI. If you have any questions or would like more information, or if > > there's additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > John Spencer > > Senior Spatial Analyst > > Carolina Population Center > > University of North Carolina > > 123 W. Franklin St. > > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > 919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > John, > > > > > > > > Thank you so much for your reply about spatial data and the DDI. We are > > in the midst of compiling requirements for Version 3.0 of the DDI, and > > we are very much interested in treating geographic and spatial data in a > > more robust way in the new version. It would be great if you could send > > me a copy of your document on spatial data and survey research, even if > > it isn't intended to be a set of proposed tags. As you mention, just > > knowing the right questions to think about is important. Thank you so > > much for offering your expertise in this area. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Mary > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Beth-Ellen Pennell > > Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:49 PM > > To: spence2@email.unc.edu; Phil Bardsley > > Cc: Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; Ed Van Duinen; John Spencer; > > Mary Vardigan > > Subject: RE: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > John -- thank-you for this. I have cc:d Mary Vardigan who heads the DDI > > effort. > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Beth-Ellen > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > Sent: Thu 11/3/2005 3:38 PM > > To: Phil Bardsley > > Cc: Beth-Ellen Pennell; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; Ed Van > > Duinen; John Spencer > > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > Greetings all, > > I wanted to follow-up on our discussion on the inclusion of spatial data > > in DDI, and send, as requested, a brief paragraph about the unique needs > > of spatial data. As we mentioned on the phone, there's a lot of > > information about spatial data that's vital to know before it can be > > used most effectively. That's true for all types of spatial data, > > whether it's a latitude and longitude coordinate collected using a GPS > > receiver or contextual information obtained from census or other source. > > For instance, knowing the coordinate system and datum of the coordinate > > is essential. In addition, other information such as error correction > > method employed for GPS coordinates or the offset employed by the > > geocoding service are key pieces of information that permit the spatial > > data to be used accurately. These are just a couple of examples, but > > there are others. In fact, enough examples that we think incorporating > > tags in DDI v.3 that accommodate the unique needs of spatial data would > > be a tremendous advancement in the functionality of DDI. > > > > > > If you'd like more information or details just let us know. We have > > developed a document which outlines some of the scenarios of how spatial > > data can be included in survey research and what information about > > spatial data is important to know about each scenario.Its not a set of > > proposed tags, but it should illustrate some of the questions that we > > ask and would like to know when we use spatial data. If it would be > > helpful we can provide it. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > John Spencer > > Senior Spatial Analyst > > Carolina Population Center > > University of North Carolina > > 123 W. Franklin St. > > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > 919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > Phil Bardsley wrote: > > > > Hi Beth-Ellen et al., > > > > It was great talking with you, too. The more people we talk with about > > this idea, the more people we find who are working on the same sort of > > tools. We will certainly plan to attend IASSIST. Meanwhile, we'd like to > > contact the NCHS folks and learn more about their product. If you can > > recommend someone to talk with there, we'd appreciate it. > > > > I'll forward your proposal for DDI v. 3 to Phil Schumm at the University > > of Chicago, whom I mentioned in our conversation. His group may have > > some useful ideas to contribute. > > > > Thanks again for taking the time to talk with us. > > > > Phil > > > > Beth-Ellen Pennell wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Phil: > > > > It was great talking to you all this week about your project. I have > > talked with Mary Vardigan who directs the overall DDI project for ICPSR. > > > > I have also cc:'d her on this message. Mary said that the plan is to > > have version 3 of the DDI ready for public comment at the end of May > > when the IASSIST conference is held in Ann Arbor (which we encourage you > > > > to attend -- excellent way to meet folks working in this area). The > > public comment period will be for about two months. Plans to > > advertise/promote are still in preliminary stages. Ideas are welcome. > > Mary is happy to discuss this further or answer any questions you might > > have. > > > > Good luck with your project and please keep in touch. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Beth-Ellen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > John Spencer > > Senior Spatial Analyst > > Carolina Population Center > > University of North Carolina > > 123 W. Franklin St. > > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > 919.966.1721 > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 sandai at umich.edu Wed Nov 9 15:12:52 2005 From: sandai at umich.edu (Sanda Ionescu) Date: Wed Nov 9 15:16:33 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools Message-ID: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB396830F86F@isr-mail2.ad.isr.umich.edu> Hi, all. I guess I need to give some clarifications because I *do* remember. Actually the point|line|polygon bit was NOT vetted. It was just inappropriately placed, so to speak. In Version 2.0 geogCover is REPEATABLE although it is meant to indicate *total* coverage. That's (at least to me it is) the misleading and maybe inappropriate bit. If it's TOTAL how can it be repeatable - it's a contradiction. The point|line|polygon bit was supposed to be an attribute of geogCover. But since at the time we could not agree on what geoCover was really supposed to contain (total coverage? or individual geographic levels? Or what?) we chose to drop the "geotype" attribute (container of the point|line|polygon choice). Right now for Version 3.0 we have clearly specified both total coverage AND individual levels, so I really don't see any problem in attaching this string to each and every level. I hope this helps. Sanda. -----Original Message----- From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Wendy Thomas Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:59 PM To: Mary Vardigan Cc: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu Subject: Re: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools re: point line polygon You may want to go back and look at what was originally proposed for this from the original geography workgroup created in the previous DDI structure. The group consisted of a number of well known geographers as well as myself and Peter Granda. In that sense its been vetted as doing what was required by the geographers. wendy On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:08 PM > To: Mary Vardigan > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > Mary, > For the most part, I think the information would be stored in a text > field. The one exception that I can think of is the spatial primitive > descriptions. Those will be either point, line or polygons. > > John > > Mary Vardigan wrote: > > John, > > > > The DDI Working Group on geography has been discussing your document and > was wondering if you have requirements for "machine-actionability" and > typing on any of your information elements. It is of course easy to set > that up for dates, but less clear for some of the other elements. Could > you live with much of this just being included as text (for example, > field collection description/limitations seems as if it would almost > always be a text field). Or would you want controlled vocabularies for > some elements like field collection protocols? If the latter, are there > standard sources that we could link to for the vocabularies? > > > > Any other thoughts you may have on this are welcomed. We found your > document very useful. > > > > Regards, > > Mary > > > > ________________________________ > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > To: Mary Vardigan > Cc: john_spencer@unc.edu; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; > edv@unc.edu; phil_bardsley@unc.edu; Beth-Ellen Pennell > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > Mary and others, > Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the Spatial > Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial > data was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the > data effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd > want to know if we were presented with spatial data from the scenarios. > Each scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the Spatial > Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component > corresponded to one (or more) records in the database. I should point > out, that this assumption is by no means the only way spatial data could > be associate with a survey. There could be contextual information that's > integrated with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. > Census, Land Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not > at the respondent level. > > Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for > DDI. If you have any questions or would like more information, or if > there's additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > John > > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John Spencer > Senior Spatial Analyst > Carolina Population Center > University of North Carolina > 123 W. Franklin St. > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > 919.966.1721 > > > > Mary Vardigan wrote: > > John, > > > > Thank you so much for your reply about spatial data and the DDI. We are > in the midst of compiling requirements for Version 3.0 of the DDI, and > we are very much interested in treating geographic and spatial data in a > more robust way in the new version. It would be great if you could send > me a copy of your document on spatial data and survey research, even if > it isn't intended to be a set of proposed tags. As you mention, just > knowing the right questions to think about is important. Thank you so > much for offering your expertise in this area. > > > > Regards, > > Mary > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Beth-Ellen Pennell > Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:49 PM > To: spence2@email.unc.edu; Phil Bardsley > Cc: Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; Ed Van Duinen; John Spencer; > Mary Vardigan > Subject: RE: Survey Research tools > > > > John -- thank-you for this. I have cc:d Mary Vardigan who heads the DDI > effort. > > Best, > > > > Beth-Ellen > > ________________________________ > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > Sent: Thu 11/3/2005 3:38 PM > To: Phil Bardsley > Cc: Beth-Ellen Pennell; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; Ed Van > Duinen; John Spencer > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > Greetings all, > I wanted to follow-up on our discussion on the inclusion of spatial data > in DDI, and send, as requested, a brief paragraph about the unique needs > of spatial data. As we mentioned on the phone, there's a lot of > information about spatial data that's vital to know before it can be > used most effectively. That's true for all types of spatial data, > whether it's a latitude and longitude coordinate collected using a GPS > receiver or contextual information obtained from census or other source. > For instance, knowing the coordinate system and datum of the coordinate > is essential. In addition, other information such as error correction > method employed for GPS coordinates or the offset employed by the > geocoding service are key pieces of information that permit the spatial > data to be used accurately. These are just a couple of examples, but > there are others. In fact, enough examples that we think incorporating > tags in DDI v.3 that accommodate the unique needs of spatial data would > be a tremendous advancement in the functionality of DDI. > > > If you'd like more information or details just let us know. We have > developed a document which outlines some of the scenarios of how spatial > data can be included in survey research and what information about > spatial data is important to know about each scenario.Its not a set of > proposed tags, but it should illustrate some of the questions that we > ask and would like to know when we use spatial data. If it would be > helpful we can provide it. > > John > > > > > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John Spencer > Senior Spatial Analyst > Carolina Population Center > University of North Carolina > 123 W. Franklin St. > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > 919.966.1721 > > > > Phil Bardsley wrote: > > Hi Beth-Ellen et al., > > It was great talking with you, too. The more people we talk with about > this idea, the more people we find who are working on the same sort of > tools. We will certainly plan to attend IASSIST. Meanwhile, we'd like to > contact the NCHS folks and learn more about their product. If you can > recommend someone to talk with there, we'd appreciate it. > > I'll forward your proposal for DDI v. 3 to Phil Schumm at the University > of Chicago, whom I mentioned in our conversation. His group may have > some useful ideas to contribute. > > Thanks again for taking the time to talk with us. > > Phil > > Beth-Ellen Pennell wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Phil: > > It was great talking to you all this week about your project. I have > talked with Mary Vardigan who directs the overall DDI project for ICPSR. > > I have also cc:'d her on this message. Mary said that the plan is to > have version 3 of the DDI ready for public comment at the end of May > when the IASSIST conference is held in Ann Arbor (which we encourage you > > to attend -- excellent way to meet folks working in this area). The > public comment period will be for about two months. Plans to > advertise/promote are still in preliminary stages. Ideas are welcome. > Mary is happy to discuss this further or answer any questions you might > have. > > Good luck with your project and please keep in touch. > > Best Regards, > > Beth-Ellen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > John Spencer > Senior Spatial Analyst > Carolina Population Center > University of North Carolina > 123 W. Franklin St. > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > 919.966.1721 > 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 _______________________________________________ DDI-ADG mailing list DDI-ADG@icpsr.umich.edu http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg From wlt at pop.umn.edu Wed Nov 9 15:42:10 2005 From: wlt at pop.umn.edu (Wendy Thomas) Date: Wed Nov 9 15:42:39 2005 Subject: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools In-Reply-To: <93111EED84D98E4C95F33D6114AB396830F86F@isr-mail2.ad.isr.umich.edu> Message-ID: when I said vetted I ment vetted by the geographers. It didn't get into DDI because of the problem you noted. On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Sanda Ionescu wrote: > Hi, all. > I guess I need to give some clarifications because I *do* remember. > Actually the point|line|polygon bit was NOT vetted. It was just > inappropriately placed, so to speak. > In Version 2.0 geogCover is REPEATABLE although it is meant to indicate > *total* coverage. That's (at least to me it is) the misleading and maybe > inappropriate bit. If it's TOTAL how can it be repeatable - it's a > contradiction. The point|line|polygon bit was supposed to be an > attribute of geogCover. But since at the time we could not agree on what > geoCover was really supposed to contain (total coverage? or individual > geographic levels? Or what?) we chose to drop the "geotype" attribute > (container of the point|line|polygon choice). > Right now for Version 3.0 we have clearly specified both total coverage > AND individual levels, so I really don't see any problem in attaching > this string to each and every level. > I hope this helps. > Sanda. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu > [mailto:ddi-adg-bounces@icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Wendy Thomas > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:59 PM > To: Mary Vardigan > Cc: ddi-adg@icpsr.umich.edu > Subject: Re: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools > > re: point line polygon > You may want to go back and look at what was originally proposed for > this > from the original geography workgroup created in the previous DDI > structure. The group consisted of a number of well known geographers as > well as myself and Peter Granda. In that sense its been vetted as doing > what was required by the geographers. > > wendy > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:08 PM > > To: Mary Vardigan > > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > Mary, > > For the most part, I think the information would be stored in a text > > field. The one exception that I can think of is the spatial primitive > > descriptions. Those will be either point, line or polygons. > > > > John > > > > Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > John, > > > > > > > > The DDI Working Group on geography has been discussing your document > and > > was wondering if you have requirements for "machine-actionability" and > > typing on any of your information elements. It is of course easy to > set > > that up for dates, but less clear for some of the other elements. > Could > > you live with much of this just being included as text (for example, > > field collection description/limitations seems as if it would almost > > always be a text field). Or would you want controlled vocabularies for > > some elements like field collection protocols? If the latter, are > there > > standard sources that we could link to for the vocabularies? > > > > > > > > Any other thoughts you may have on this are welcomed. We found your > > document very useful. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Mary > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM > > To: Mary Vardigan > > Cc: john_spencer@unc.edu; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; > > edv@unc.edu; phil_bardsley@unc.edu; Beth-Ellen Pennell > > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > Mary and others, > > Here is the document I wrote with Phil Page (the director of the > Spatial > > Analysis Unit here at CPC) that outlines some scenarios where spatial > > data was part of a survey and key things we'd need to know to use the > > data effectively. What we tried to do was present the things that we'd > > want to know if we were presented with spatial data from the > scenarios. > > Each scenario reflects examples we have encountered here at the > Spatial > > Analysis Unit. Our assumption was that the spatial component > > corresponded to one (or more) records in the database. I should point > > out, that this assumption is by no means the only way spatial data > could > > be associate with a survey. There could be contextual information > that's > > integrated with the survey that comes from spatial databases, e.g. > > Census, Land Cover, Elevation, etc that is at the survey level and not > > at the respondent level. > > > > Anyway, hope this helps clarify some issues. I think the addition of > > spatial data capabilities would represent a valuable advancement for > > DDI. If you have any questions or would like more information, or if > > there's additional help I can provide, just let me know. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > John Spencer > > Senior Spatial Analyst > > Carolina Population Center > > University of North Carolina > > 123 W. Franklin St. > > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > 919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > Mary Vardigan wrote: > > > > John, > > > > > > > > Thank you so much for your reply about spatial data and the DDI. We > are > > in the midst of compiling requirements for Version 3.0 of the DDI, and > > we are very much interested in treating geographic and spatial data in > a > > more robust way in the new version. It would be great if you could > send > > me a copy of your document on spatial data and survey research, even > if > > it isn't intended to be a set of proposed tags. As you mention, just > > knowing the right questions to think about is important. Thank you so > > much for offering your expertise in this area. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Mary > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Beth-Ellen Pennell > > Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:49 PM > > To: spence2@email.unc.edu; Phil Bardsley > > Cc: Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; Ed Van Duinen; John Spencer; > > Mary Vardigan > > Subject: RE: Survey Research tools > > > > > > > > John -- thank-you for this. I have cc:d Mary Vardigan who heads the > DDI > > effort. > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Beth-Ellen > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: John Spencer [mailto:spence2@email.unc.edu] > > Sent: Thu 11/3/2005 3:38 PM > > To: Phil Bardsley > > Cc: Beth-Ellen Pennell; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen; Ed Van > > Duinen; John Spencer > > Subject: Re: Survey Research tools > > > > Greetings all, > > I wanted to follow-up on our discussion on the inclusion of spatial > data > > in DDI, and send, as requested, a brief paragraph about the unique > needs > > of spatial data. As we mentioned on the phone, there's a lot of > > information about spatial data that's vital to know before it can be > > used most effectively. That's true for all types of spatial data, > > whether it's a latitude and longitude coordinate collected using a GPS > > receiver or contextual information obtained from census or other > source. > > For instance, knowing the coordinate system and datum of the > coordinate > > is essential. In addition, other information such as error correction > > method employed for GPS coordinates or the offset employed by the > > geocoding service are key pieces of information that permit the > spatial > > data to be used accurately. These are just a couple of examples, but > > there are others. In fact, enough examples that we think incorporating > > tags in DDI v.3 that accommodate the unique needs of spatial data > would > > be a tremendous advancement in the functionality of DDI. > > > > > > If you'd like more information or details just let us know. We have > > developed a document which outlines some of the scenarios of how > spatial > > data can be included in survey research and what information about > > spatial data is important to know about each scenario.Its not a set of > > proposed tags, but it should illustrate some of the questions that we > > ask and would like to know when we use spatial data. If it would be > > helpful we can provide it. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > John Spencer > > Senior Spatial Analyst > > Carolina Population Center > > University of North Carolina > > 123 W. Franklin St. > > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > 919.966.1721 > > > > > > > > Phil Bardsley wrote: > > > > Hi Beth-Ellen et al., > > > > It was great talking with you, too. The more people we talk with about > > this idea, the more people we find who are working on the same sort of > > tools. We will certainly plan to attend IASSIST. Meanwhile, we'd like > to > > contact the NCHS folks and learn more about their product. If you can > > recommend someone to talk with there, we'd appreciate it. > > > > I'll forward your proposal for DDI v. 3 to Phil Schumm at the > University > > of Chicago, whom I mentioned in our conversation. His group may have > > some useful ideas to contribute. > > > > Thanks again for taking the time to talk with us. > > > > Phil > > > > Beth-Ellen Pennell wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Phil: > > > > It was great talking to you all this week about your project. I have > > talked with Mary Vardigan who directs the overall DDI project for > ICPSR. > > > > I have also cc:'d her on this message. Mary said that the plan is to > > have version 3 of the DDI ready for public comment at the end of May > > when the IASSIST conference is held in Ann Arbor (which we encourage > you > > > > to attend -- excellent way to meet folks working in this area). The > > public comment period will be for about two months. Plans to > > advertise/promote are still in preliminary stages. Ideas are welcome. > > Mary is happy to discuss this further or answer any questions you > might > > have. > > > > Good luck with your project and please keep in touch. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Beth-Ellen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > John Spencer > > Senior Spatial Analyst > > Carolina Population Center > > University of North Carolina > > 123 W. Franklin St. > > Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA > > 919.966.1721 > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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