[DDI-SRG] Terms: life cycle, XML Schema/schemes

Wed Jul 2 12:34:21 EDT 2008

All:
FYI, we have a FAQ facility that we can use on the DDI Tools web site at:
http://tools.ddialliance.org/faq
Let me know if you want to use this and if you need admin accounts.
best
Pasca

Wendy Thomas wrote:
> There are three other recurring themes in terms of questions that we 
> should probably have an agreed and consistant response to. The first is 
> common when doing short presentations because we do not go into extensive 
> content detail (its too much and there's no time):
>
> "It's a 'black box'"
> "It's way too complicated to use"
> "How do you get the information from the researcher?"
> "What's the point without tools?"
> "Where are the tools?"
>
> Here are the responses I've been using, but as I said, we need to craft 
> responses that are clear, easy to remember, and can be used consistantly. 
> These are not necessarily those answers, just what I've been responding.
>
> "It's a 'black box'"
> In the sense of this presentation, yes it is, because there wasn't time to 
> go into detail. However, the contents of this particular black box are 
> well structured and predictable. The components capture pieces of 
> information and relationships in a consistant way that allows programmers 
> to build tools to capture information, run search systems, and develop 
> complex software to explore and anylize the data being described.
>
> "It's way too complicated to use"
> You are rarely going to be looking at DDI content directly in the XML 
> structure. You will normally be using tools for input or exploration and 
> the content will be displayed through an interface. The underlying 
> structure was designed to facilitate reuse of the metadata. Viewers such 
> as XSLT let you arrange the content and look at it in a variety of 
> formats. What's going on behind what you see in a word processor is also 
> complicated, you just don't think about it because you aren't look at it 
> directly.
>
> "How do you get the information from the researcher?"
> This is not a new problem. It's been with us regardless of the format of 
> the metadata we are collecting. Earlier versions of DDI helped by 
> identifying specific pieces of metadata that were important to capture. It 
> was clearer than a general description. However, to get this inforamtion 
> from researchers we need to make the process of capturing the metadata 
> something that facilitates their work. Large data collection agencies only 
> became really interested when they learned that DDI 3.0 could assist them 
> in maintaining consistancy within the organization (through registries) 
> and that the content was structured in a way that they could not only 
> reuse the metadata rather than reenter it, but use it to inform and drive 
> their production processes. For individual researchers we need to identify 
> the direct advantages to their research process and build tools that will 
> allow them to take advantage of this.
>
> "What's the point without tools?"
> Its a bit like the chicken and the egg, you need to have a structure for 
> the content before you can start building tools.
>
> "Where are the tools?"
> The DDI Alliance recognized early on that without tools there would not be 
> a lot of DDI 3.0 users. The candidate release and review involved the 
> development of some tools and common code that would be needed for tools 
> development. The early tools focus on moving metadata into and out of 
> statistical packages (SPSS, SAS, etc.). The DDI Foundation Tools program 
> was designed to coordingate and support early open source tools 
> development so that we could pool our talents and get the initial tools 
> out as soon as possible. A DDI editor is a priority project and parts are 
> currently under development. [Reference tools update information, current 
> status and estimated delivery dates if known]
>
>
> I think it would be more effective having a set of bullet points for each 
> of these common questions rather than a script. Mostly we want to be sure 
> people are getting the same 2 or 3 basic points from whoever is being 
> asked within the DDI Alliance.
>
> Wendy
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Joachim Wackerow wrote:
>
>   
>> Looking back at several DDI workshops and presentations for mixed
>> audiences I have the impression that two often used core terms should be
>> clarified in expression, and used in a constant and clear manner.
>>
>> Suggestion for discussion (this is the outcome of talking with Wendy
>> about that):
>>
>> "life cycle" should be "data/metadata life cycle"
>>
>> Reasoning: Researcher are more focused on people not metadata. So
>> sometimes people think at life cycle of people (not data/metadata) like
>> life history. The documentation is concerned about the life cycle of
>> data. Reuse of documentation in the DDI sense is concerned about the
>> life cycle of metadata. Regarding life cycle, data and metadata can
>> probably not be easily differentiated in different terms. Therefore
>> combination of data/metadata. Sometimes the term "life cycle of survey"
>> is used. This should be really only used when dealing with survey data.
>> DDI can be used for a broader range of data. Therefore the term data is
>> here used (not survey) in a general sense.
>> Note: sometimes people say that "life cycle" is not a good metaphor
>> because in a biological sense there is death at the end but no death of
>> data. I think there is no better metaphor for that. A possible response
>> would be: life cycle on the level of the species not the individual.
>>
>>
>> XML Schemas versus schemes (like variable scheme)
>> "XML Schemas" should be always "XML Schemas" not just "Schemas"
>> schemes should be "DDI schemes"
>>
>> Reasoning: These similar sounding terms can cause some confusion.  "XML
>> Schema" is a well defined term from W3C. It is a technical means to
>> define a XML structure. It seems to be quite common to use it in this
>> writing. Schemes in DDI are basically lists of items like variable
>> schemes (list of variables), questions schemes etc. The term scheme in
>> DDI is used for exactly this purpose. This must be explained in
>> documentations and teaching materials. The fixed term "DDI schemes"
>> should be used always when mentioning these (not just schemes).
>>
>>
>> When we can agree on new terms they should be used in a constant manner
>> throughout all documentation and teaching material.
>>
>> Probably other terms are also candidates for clear and consequent wording.
>>
>> Any thoughts or other ideas?
>>
>> Achim
>> _______________________________________________
>> DDI-SRG mailing list
>> DDI-SRG at icpsr.umich.edu
>> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-srg
>>
>>     
>
> 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-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/20080702/647cf368/attachment.html 