[DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools

[Atle Alvheim]

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 at pop.umn.edu]
>Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:57 PM
>To: Katherine McNeill-Harman
>Cc: Mary Vardigan; ddi-adg at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at pop.umn.edu
>University of Minnesota
>50 Willey Hall
>225 19th Avenue South
>Minneapolis, MN 55455
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>DDI-ADG mailing list
>DDI-ADG at icpsr.umich.edu
>http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg