[DDI-SRG] EduDDI in Germany

[Wendy Thomas]

A few quick comments aside from this is REALLY FANTASTIC news!

See below...wlt

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Joachim Wackerow wrote:

> Yesterday I was at the second meeting of EduDDI and some good news:
>
> EduDDI was formed last December to build a framework for using DDI3 at
> several educational research institutes in Germany. The driving people
> are Michel Knigge und Martin Mechtel from the IQB in Berlin (Institute
> for Educational Progress), who attended the workshop last autumn in
> Dagstuhl. One other important institute is the DIPF (German Institute
> for International Educational Research). One goal is to build resource
> packages specific for the needs of educational research.
>
> It was mentioned that NEPS is planning to use DDI3. The National
> Educational Panel Study (NEPS) is a new major panel study in Germany.
> http://www.uni-bamberg.de/en/neps/
>
> A student is working in the Diplomarbeit (like master thesis) on the
> subject standards/DDI.
>
>
> Some questions/issues were raised at the meeting:
>
>
> - Test scales
>
> The data collection module does not cover enough the needs for test
> scales. Example: tasks of the PISA study. IQB would be interested to
> discuss this requirement after some further experiences with DDI.
>
We do have a bug already listed regarding dealing with anchored scales. We 
should certainly discuss the types of scales they need to be able to 
express prior to addressing this bug.

>
> - Controlled vocabularies/Genericode
>
> They are interested to use Genericode lists in an extensive way. Not all
> places in DDI3 - they are interested - in support this possibility. In
> generalizing this approach: I think it would be a good idea to support
> the mechanism of adding a Genericode list to every machine-actionable
> string value of elements/attributes. This way specific allowed values
> can be defined in a flexible way dependent from the
> institution/domain/application. As already discussed and in development:
> the DDI Alliance can publish Genericode lists (controlled vocabularies)
> for some elements where a general, domain-independent CV can make sense.
>
> This would cause a change on every element/attribute which is defined as
> xs:string and probably additionally elements/attributes which are
> defined as InternationalStringType, TypedStringType, and OneCharStringType.
>
>
I think we should be somewhat careful on this as it may not always make 
sense to have a controlled vocabulary option for all of these string 
classes. We should investigate further.


> - Universe, machine-actionable value
>
> They asked also for a way to use values - which are mentioned in
> CodeSchemes/CategorySchemes - in Code of Universe.
> Example: a survey on all German Bundeslaender has a variable Bundesland
> with a related CodeScheme/CategoryScheme. In further surveys specific to
> only one Bundesland the Universe should be defined (and controlled)
> according to the CodeScheme/CategoryScheme of the other survey.
>
Universe when geographic can be associated with one or more codeschemes 
using GeographicStructure and GoegraphicLocation. Did this go beyond 
geographic related universes?



> Universe in conceptual component has a child MachineReadable ("A
> machine-readable statement of the universe, expressed as a Coding."),
> which is defined as r:CodeType ("Structures the expression of a coding
> in the data collection process."). This element is used several times in
> data collection, where it does make sense. There seems to be something
> weird. The attribute programmingLanguage does not really make sense for
> a universe.
>
> If MachineReadable would be defined as l:CodeType, then it would meed
> the above mentioned requirement. Was this the original intention?
>
We are currently reviewing the use of CodeType and CommandType and this 
should be wrapped in. l:CodeType was specifically defined to support 
l:Code in l:CodeScheme and has nothing to do with relaying a machine 
readable (actionable) means of relaying how a universe is constructed. The 
intent here was to provide a location to define in a generic code (e.g. 
MathML) or another language how a universe was defined. For example the 
members of a parent universe that have certain characteristics as defined 
by values of certain varaibles. At least that was the original intent.


> Anyway, this issue seems to need some discussion.
>
>
> - Universe of a variable, which is defined in a resource package.
>
> Reusable variables should stay in resource packages. When using this
> variables from a VariableScheme by VariableReference it doesn't seems to
> be possible to define a specific universe. This is only possible below
> Variable in the resource packages, where it doesn't make sense, because
> the variable should be reusable, i.e. reusable for different universes.
> Currently a workaround with VariableGroup is possible. VariableGroup can
> have a UniverseReference and can use VariableReference to point to the
> Variable in the resource package.
>
> It seems that UniverseReference (now used in Variable) should also be
> also usable in VariableReference and VariableGroupReference.
>
yep...definately a problem.

>
> Achim
>
>
> -- 
> GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
> Postal address: P.O. Box 122155, 68072 Mannheim, Germany
> Visiting address: B2 1, 68159 Mannheim, Germany
> Phone: +49 (0)621 1246 262
> Fax: +49 (0)621 1246 100
> E-mail: joachim.wackerow at gesis.org
> www.gesis.org/en/institute/
> _______________________________________________
> 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