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

[Wendy Thomas]

Pascal,

Right now we just need to get some concensus. I think the information 
should be distributed in a number of ways including by presenters when the 
question arises.

Wendy


On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Pascal Heus wrote:

> 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
>>
>> 
>
>

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