[DDI-SRG] TIC Meeting: Identifier issues

Tue Oct 30 10:03:33 EDT 2007

J:
Thanks for the clarification. Are we sure we want to limit the 
versionDate to a single date? I'm just wondering if  it's worth keeping 
the range functionality. I may sometime want to specify the validity 
period of a code list for example. Now that I think of it, it's actually 
a different thing. We can have the versionDat attribute as you suggest, 
is it worth having a ValidityPeriod as a date type? Just a though.
*P

J Gager wrote:
> Pascal -
>
> I am answering on behalf of Achim.
>  
> - what is the @action attribute in identifiers?
> 	This has values of Add/Delete/Replace. It is used for overriding in
> the grouping meachanism as documented in the orginal Add/Replace/Delete
> elements of the IdentifiableIDType et al.
>
> - In your email, you mention that Name, VersionResponsibility and
> VersionRationale remain elements. I assume that VersionDate is in there as
> well.
> 	Version date will actually be a attribute of type r:BaseDateType
> (which is a union of ISO year, year month, date, etc.)
>
> - will the ReferenceType be revised as well and become attribute base and
> reflect the same approah as for identifiers? This would make it more
> compact.
> 	ReferenceType will not become attributes due to the fact that there
> is substructure in this, such as the additional referencing necessary for a
> schemes and exclusion of items from them. In addition, there are case where
> ReferenceType is extended to add additional content (see
> pi:PhysicalDataProductReferenceType). Since this can have multiple items, it
> must be an element and the idea of a reference mixing elements and
> attributes is very off putting from a consistent design perspective.
> However, we are going to revisit all reference and strongly type them based
> on what is being referenced. For instance, referencing a variable will now
> require either a URN or a combination of scheme reference(ID, agency,
> version) and item reference (ID, version) - all required.
>
> - Have we defined a formatting regular expression for version. I do not
> particularly support non-numeric characters in version as they may not sort
> as well as numbers.
> 	Bug 00046 has not been resolved yet, but I too am of the opinion
> that we should limit these to numbers (despite the original proposed
> solution).
>
> J
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ddi-srg-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu
> [mailto:ddi-srg-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Pascal Heus
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:07 PM
> To: Chris Nelson
> Cc: 'DDI Technical Implementation Committee'; 'Chris Nelson'
> Subject: Re: [DDI-SRG] TIC Meeting: Identifier issues
>
> Chris:
> Thanks for your input. Regrading your note on mandatory ID in reference of
> the enclosing maintainable object (for versionable and identifiable), this
> is really something we want o avoid in DDI as it will lead to hundred of
> repeat of the same element. To alleviate this problem, we have introduced
> the "default" scheme mechanism. For example, in the PhysicalDataProduct
> RecordLayout, a defaultVariableScheme is defined and use for all the
> variable reference in the layout. Otherwise, I will repeat the same
> infomration for every variable which can repeat hundred or thousands of
> time. This element already exists in references as the optional 'scheme'. I
> agree that it can be present but should not be mandatory (unless a default
> is not provided, this should be validate by the DDI Parser).
>
> Achim:
> a few more questions:
> - what is the @action attribute in identifiers?
> - In your email, you mention that Name, VersionResponsibility and
> VersionRationale remain elements. I assume that VersionDate is in there as
> well.
> - will the ReferenceType be revised as well and become attribute base and
> reflect the same approah as for identifiers? This would make it more
> compact.
> - Have we defined a formatting regular expression for version. I do not
> particularly support non-numeric characters in version as they may not sort
> as well as numbers.
>
> thanks
> *P
>
> Chris Nelson wrote:
>   
>> Joachim,
>> I agree with option 4. This is, essentially, the way it is done in SDMX.
>> Both the Id method and the URN method should be supported (as they are 
>> in the option). For referencing in SDMX we allow either or both of the 
>> full identifier by attributes (agency, id, version etc.) and URN. In 
>> other words, if the URN is present then there is no need for the full 
>> identifier by attributes. Is this the intent here?
>>
>> For specification of unique Ids, where the URN is composed from a 
>> pre-determined set of components that include the Id, I would prefer 
>> to see the specification of the full identifier by attributes to be 
>> mandatory. The URN could be optional  i.e. for specification the 
>> application is not allowed to specify a URN on its own, as it is not 
>> allowed to specify "any" URN - the URN must be composed to the rules 
>> of the DDI URN scheme which includes the unique Id.
>>
>> For both referencing and specification, if both are supplied and there 
>> is a mismatch between the URN and the full id by attributes, then one 
>> of them should take priority.
>>
>> Just a note, also about the Id as your example is not clear here. For 
>> a maintainable the id is the id of the maintainable. For a versionable 
>> or identifiable, it must also have the id of the maintainable within 
>> which it is contained e.g. when referencing a variable it is mandatory 
>> to identify also the variable scheme.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ddi-srg-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu
>> [mailto:ddi-srg-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Joachim Wackerow
>> Sent: 29 October 2007 11:22
>> To: Pascal Heus; DDI Technical Implementation Committee; Chris Nelson
>> Subject: [DDI-SRG] TIC Meeting: Identifier issues
>>
>> Pascal, Chris, and others,
>>
>>
>> We started today the meeting in Dagstuhl. We discussed again the 
>> identifier issue. Please see the attached file for details. Currently 
>> we are all opting for version number 4 (attributes) right now. We would
>>     
> like to think on that.
>   
>> Do you have any opinions on that?
>>
>> Additional note:
>> things like Name, VersionResponsibility and VersionRationale need to 
>> be elements in base abstract Identifier ComplexType.
>>
>> Pascal:
>> We will discuss data types. Do you have any additional opinion on the 
>> issue beyond the recorded issues in Mantis?
>>
>> Achim
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> DDI-SRG mailing list
> DDI-SRG at icpsr.umich.edu
> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-srg
>
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-srg/attachments/20071030/8f5538a8/attachment.html 