[DDI-CDG] Proposal
Oliver Watteler
watteler at za.uni-koeln.de
Fri Oct 22 13:02:46 EDT 2004
Dear all,
reading your reactions to my message I think I do have to clarify some
things in a brief way. Mentioning MetaDater so prominently in my mail
was not intended to signal any priority of this project over the
individual input by the group members. The "chair" that I hold over this
group does not make me the head or leader or whoever you may call a
person that makes decisions. I see myself as a moderator and as such I
see three things at stake:
- the work of the DDI-Alliance to expand the standard toward comparative
studies etc.,
- the work of MetaDater, which as far as have learned includes a direct
input into the Alliance, because it develops a complex metadata model
that needs its parallel in the DDI world, and
- the interests of all members of this group representing different
institutions and archives needing the above mentioned expansion of DDI.
Now these three groups overlap, interests overlap and resources a
scarce. Thus, my intention was to spur the process of making this
expansion happen by bundling up those three groups. I have obviously
failed in communicating this aim. Nobody should feel held back in her or
his opportunity to participate in this group. The papers I have sent
around were a second step after the agreeably slow start in early 2004
to reach some results. I am sorry if anybody had the feeling that
decisions were about to be prepared without the necessary transparency.
I do not think that it is a good idea to just open internal MetaDater
information to this group. This would just mean, as Reto said,
commenting on work in progress. I would like to see the three stake
holding groups above to reach a common goal that serves all interests.
Greetings from Cologne,
yours Oliver.
P.S.: Please send mails concerning this group to the group's mail
address <ddi-cdg at icpsr.umich.edu>.
Reto Hadorn wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Meinhard,
>
>
> Thank you for your prompt answer and for your support for chairing ideas
> in the making.
>
> Yet I disagree on the necessity of having the agreement of the MetaDater
> project for any contribution of MetaDater partner to other groups
> working on similar issues. As the Swiss delegate to the expert group of
> the DDI-Alliance, I should have the possibility of participating at
> local meetings appointed by the chair of the Comparative Data subgroup,
> to contribute with the ideas I have and with the documents I write. The
> validation of documents by the project is another matter, which concerns
> only the official documents published under the heading of the project.
> I did not wait for MetaDater for starting a reflection on these issues
> and there is no reason that the MetaDater filters my possible
> contributions to the DDI expert committee.
>
> Please, don't let me think that coordinating the MetaDater project,
> chairing the Comparative data subgroup and having expertise in
> integrating datasets is too much power for a single archive.
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Reto
>
> P.S. and a nice holiday in Paris!
>
>
>
>
> At 22.10.2004, you wrote:
>
>> Hi and agreed. MetaDater should decide about documents to be made
>> public, at least for the CDG-group.
>> Greetings
>> Meinhard
>> Reto Hadorn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Oliver, Hello colleagues,
>>>
>>>
>>> I have read the minutes of your meeting at ZUMA with interest.
>>>
>>> As you say, there is still a lack of shared concepts for formal
>>> description the various kinds of comparative studies the
>>> relationships between them.
>>>
>>> Let me put an accent on 'shared'. Actually, there are a lot more
>>> documents around in the MetaDater project, which aim at defining a
>>> vocabulary for the various kinds of datasets involved and their
>>> relationships. Perhaps you can manage to get more information,
>>> working in the data archive managing the project. You can also
>>> establish direct contacts with other MetaDater partners working on
>>> the issue. There should be some more advanced papers or ideas
>>> available than the paper form January 2003.
>>>
>>> Stabilising a conceptual map for the work done while managing a
>>> repeated comparative study is not a simple process; it involves a lot
>>> of communication, explanation, criticism and re-elaboration. If the
>>> DDI-Alliance subgroup and the staff working on the MetaDater project
>>> have a chance to do this now, we avoid later discussions on already
>>> rigidified conceptions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Reto Hadorn
>>> SIDOS
>>> Switzerland
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 21.10.2004, Oliver Watteler wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> In mid-September I informed you that Achim Wackerow (ZUMA), Meinhard
>>>> Moschner (ZA) and I were going to meet in order to discuss the aims
>>>> of this group. We came up with a draft proposal that has to be seen
>>>> as starting point for further discussion. I also include a protocol
>>>> of our meeting which reflects some of thoughts on comparative data.
>>>>
>>>> The cooperation with MetaDater is a crucial issue. This proposal is
>>>> not intended to boost a parallel development on the DDI side, but
>>>> since MetaDater's originale plan incorporates the aim to feed
>>>> information to the DDI, we should set up a communication chanel
>>>> between the two. I will be at the meeting of DDI's Structural Reform
>>>> Group in Ann Arbor and will give a brief introduction into what
>>>> MetaDater is heading for, because there are still people in the
>>>> Alliance who haven't heard of it so far. Since the MetaDater data
>>>> model is not finished yet, I will not talk about this though. But as
>>>> I have pointed out to Uwe before, it is of vital interst to some of
>>>> the DDI Alliance members to have the standard expanded toward the
>>>> mark up of comparative data and they will not wait for MetaDater.
>>>> Maybe one way of dealing with the different project speeds is that
>>>> the Structural Reform Group feeds back their ideas of a data model
>>>> to MetaDater so that this project can check whether the two models
>>>> go together well. This will probably be a joint effort with good
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> Please go through the two papers and let the group know what you
>>>> think about them. I suggest that you make proposals for changes of
>>>> the actual proposal to the group and we will then make them part
>>>> Mary Vardigan of ICPSR was confident that we can set up aweb-space
>>>> for the different DDI subgroups. In Ann Arbor I will also get in
>>>> touch with members of the Complex File Group, as far as any of them
>>>> will participate in the meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings from Cologne,
>>>> yours Oliver.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> GESIS - Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialfoschung (ZA)
>>>> Oliver Watteler, M.A.
>>>>
>>>> Dokumentation und Archivierung
>>>> /Documentation and Archiving
>>>>
>>>> Bachemer Str.40
>>>> 50931 Köln
>>>> Tel.:++49-221-47694-76
>>>> FAX :++49-221-47694-44
>>>> Web :http://www.gesis.org/za
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meeting CDG Mannheim_eng_20102004.doc
>>>> <file://s:%5Cstations%5Chadorn%5Ceudora-6%5Cattach%5CMeeting%20CDG%20Mannheim_eng_20102004.doc>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aims CDG_draft_20102004.doc
>>>> <file://s:%5Cstations%5Chadorn%5Ceudora-6%5Cattach%5CAims%20CDG_draft_20102004.doc>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> DDI-CDG mailing list
>>>> DDI-CDG at icpsr.umich.edu
>>>> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-cdg
>>>
>>>
--
GESIS - Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialfoschung (ZA)
Oliver Watteler, M.A.
Dokumentation und Archivierung
/Documentation and Archiving
Bachemer Str.40
50931 Köln
Tel.:++49-221-47694-76
FAX :++49-221-47694-44
Web :http://www.gesis.org/za
More information about the DDI-CDG
mailing list