Fwd: RE: [DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools

Tue Nov 8 15:15:19 EST 2005

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 <mcneillh at 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" <ilona_e at berkeley.edu>
> >To: "'Katherine McNeill-Harman'" <mcneillh at mit.edu>
> >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 at icpsr.umich.edu
> >[mailto:ddi-adg-bounces at 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 at 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 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
> >
> >___________________________________________
> >Katherine McNeill-Harman
> >Data Services Librarian
> >Dewey Library for Management and Social Sciences
> >Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> >77 Massachusetts Avenue, E53-100
> >Cambridge, MA 02139
> >mcneillh at mit.edu
> >617-253-0787
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >DDI-ADG mailing list
> >DDI-ADG at icpsr.umich.edu
> >http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg
> 
> ___________________________________________
> Katherine McNeill-Harman
> Data Services Librarian
> Dewey Library for Management and Social Sciences
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> 77 Massachusetts Avenue, E53-100
> Cambridge, MA 02139
> mcneillh at mit.edu
> 617-253-0787 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DDI-ADG mailing list
> DDI-ADG at icpsr.umich.edu
> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-adg
> 