[DDI-ADG] FW: Survey Research tools

[Sanda Ionescu]

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 at icpsr.umich.edu
[mailto:ddi-adg-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Wendy Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:59 PM
To: Mary Vardigan
Cc: ddi-adg at 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 at 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 at email.unc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:22 PM
> To: Mary Vardigan
> Cc: john_spencer at unc.edu; Gina-Qian Cheung; Sue Ellen Hansen;
> edv at unc.edu; phil_bardsley at 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 at 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 at 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 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