[DDI-SRG] DataKind

[Wendy Thomas]

Ok...I'll go through the points and incorporate them into the bugs where 
needed. Making new bugs as required. I'll send the revised bug 
identification out when I get this done (today).

Wendy

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Sanda Ionescu wrote:

>
> OK, Wendy.
>
> To further clarify things:
> - We meant to send the message, but, as I said before, were not sure if
> we had done it. Ken was actually referring to this message, that
> reflects the discussion within the Controlled Vocabularies Group.
> - Secondly, I was revising the message yesterday and saw no reason why
> we should move Data Source to Study Unit. At this point, I think it's
> fine to stay in Data Collection, so please ignore that part (do not file
> as a bug)
> - Am looking at DataKind in 2.1 right now. Forthcoming.
>
> Sanda.
>
> Sanda Ionescu
> ICPSR
> University of Michigan
> P.O. Box 1248
> Ann Arbor, MI 48106
>
> Phone, Fax: 734-615-7890
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wendy Thomas [mailto:wlt at pop.umn.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:53 PM
> To: Sanda Ionescu
> Cc: ddi-srg at icpsr.umich.edu
> Subject: RE: DataKind
>
> This came up during our TIC meeting. Ken mentioned it. I don't recall
> seeing this email, but my brain has been turned off for a week so I may
> just not recall it.
>
> There is a reason for Data Source to be in Data Collection. Each Data
> Collection activity may have a different Data Source and there needs to
> be a clear connection between these. Why is it important to you that it
> be in Study Unit?
>
> Also, is it clear that the reason I'm asking about DataKind is that in
> 2.1 the DataProduct and the DataSource were a unique set (1..1) and in
> 3.0 there can be a n..1 (product to source) relationship
>
> Wendy
>
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Sanda Ionescu wrote:
>
>> Hi, Wendy,
>>
>> First of all, could you please help clarify a confusion on our part -
>> did you file this bug in response to a message that Mary sent a while
>> ago (see message text below) - she was out of the office for a while
>> and we do not recall if this message was actually sent or not.
>>
>> Message text: (on behalf of the Controlled Vocabularies Working
> Group):
>> "Hi, Wendy.
>>
>> We  would like to submit a request for a change in DDI 3.0 following
>> our last two calls from December:
>> (1) We don't think Data Source should map to Data Kind. Data Source
>> content should be citations to actual sources, printed or
>> machine-readable,  for non-survey data.
>>
>> Related issues:
>>
>> (a) Data Source should not be in the Data Collection - Collection
>> Event module but rather the Study Unit.
>> (b)  Child elements for Data Source are  currently in error. They
>> should be (from DDI 2 Tag Library):
>>
>> * Data Source Type (Used to list the book(s), article(s), serial(s),
>> and/or machine-readable data file(s)--if any--that served as the
>> source(s) of the data collection.)
>> * Origin (For historical materials, information about the origin(s) of
>
>> the sources and the rules followed in establishing the sources should
>> be specified. May not be relevant to survey data. )
>> * Characteristics (Assessment of characteristics and quality of source
>
>> material. May not be relevant to survey data.)
>> * Please add this: Documentation (Level of documentation of the
>> original sources. May not be relevant to survey data. )
>> * Current "Description"  element should be removed.
>>
>> (2) Data Kind should be reinstated in the Study Unit module with its
>> DDI
>> 2 definition: The type of data included in the file: survey data,
>> census/enumeration data, aggregate data, clinical data,
>> event/transaction data, program source code, machine-readable text,
>> administrative records data, experimental data, psychological test,
>> textual data, coded textual, coded documents, time budget diaries,
>> observation data/ratings, process-produced data, etc. This element
>> maps to Dublin Core Type element." -- end text :-)
>>
>> Sanda.
>>
>> Sanda Ionescu
>> ICPSR
>> University of Michigan
>> P.O. Box 1248
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48106
>>
>> Phone, Fax: 734-615-7890
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wendy Thomas [mailto:wlt at pop.umn.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:05 PM
>> To: ddi-srg at icpsr.umich.edu
>> Cc: Mary Vardigan; Sanda Ionescu
>> Subject: DataKind
>>
>> I am adding the bug on missing DataKind and have a question. In DDI
>> 2.0 there was a different StudyUnit for each logical product (e.g.
>> microdata, aggregate, etc from the 1990 Census). Does DataKind refer
>> to the data SOURCE or the data PRODUCT?
>>
>> <!-- 2.2.3.10 Kind of Data.
>> -->
>> <!-- The type of data included in the file: survey data,
>> census/enumeration
>>       data, aggregate data, clinical data, event/transaction data,
>> program
>>       source code, machine-readable text, administrative records data,
>>       experimental data, psychological test, textual data, coded
>> textual,
>>       coded documents, time budget diaries, observation data/ratings,
>>       process-produced data, etc.
>> -->
>>
>> This is a subelement of Summary Description
>>
>> Wendy
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> 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
>

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