[DDI-SRG] Updated 2.1 to 3.0 mapping UPDATE
Pascal Heus
pascal.heus at gmail.com
Tue Jan 13 18:46:44 EST 2009
Sanda:
Regarding the 2.0 duplication issue, tools will need to take care of
optimizing XML upgraded to 3.0 in order to reduce the metadata
duplication that exists in earlier versions. There is however
technically nothing wrong from the schema perspective to duplicate the
information, this is how most of the converters or generator that we
have available today work (Dextris, DExT, etc.). If you are working on a
stylehsheet, I would suggest not o undertake such effort in isolation.
It is a component of the DDI-FTP program and others are working on the
same issue. For example, upgrading the base existing dextris transform
from CR1 to the official release would be helpful and provides you with
a starting point. A 3.0 metadata optimizer should be developed as an
stand alone utility as others can have the same problem.
On a more philosophical question of upgrading to 3.0, tools will often
not be able to do so without some level human intervention / inputs
(need at least agency, etc.). There is a proposal for an upgrade wizard
that was submitted under the DDI Editing Suite project where this is
discussed in more details. I however can't provide more info at this
time as, as far as I know, the tender process has not been completed.
best
*P
Sanda Ionescu wrote:
> Wendy,
> This actually helps a lot - knowing the actual purpose of the mapping.
> When it is published we absolutely have to have a note clearly
> explaining to users what you just told me, that it indicates a
> "correspondence" between fields, but specs for tools will have to
> account for structural differences and other practical issues.
> Thanks
> 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: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:26 PM
> To: Sanda Ionescu
> Cc: TIC list; tassoukis at iza.org; askitas at iza.org; Mary Vardigan
> Subject: RE: Updated 2.1 to 3.0 mapping UPDATE
>
> Sanda,
>
> This is the intended mapping based on the definitions in DDI 2.1 and
> 3.0.
> There are some things in DDI 3.0 that are simply not supported by the
> content of 2.1. Your example of Concept and Universe are a case in
> point.
> In terms of mechanical translation either the software has to remove the
>
> duplication during the process automatically or with human intervention
> OR
> cleanup and modification have to take place after the intial conversion.
>
> If you look at any of the Concept entries you will note that the content
>
> goes to an entry in the ConceptScheme and the variable or question
> references that entry. If you look at the output of the SPSS and SAS
> coversions to DDI 3.0 you will note that they do not take into
> consideration replication of categories. I've got two options. Use it as
>
> is and live with a DDI 3.0 complient but not optimized file OR run a
> post
> translation cleanup. Well a third option is not to use it all.
>
> Clearly translation tools will need to deal with these problems. The
> point
> of the spreadsheet is to indicate into which object in DDI 3.0 the
> information would go. The biggest problem I was finding was
> "felxibility"
> of 2.1 in terms of how information was entered in any given field and
> what
> this means for the translation system.
>
> What I need to know from reviewers is errors in Xpaths, misdirection of
> information to the wrong location and instances of locations where you
> have consistantly interpreted the content of a 2.1 field in a different
> way.
>
> Not sure if this clarifies things for you but keep asking the questions
> and I'll try to answer.
>
> Wendy
>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Sanda Ionescu wrote:
>
>
>> Hi, Wendy.
>>
>> As I look at your 2->3 mapping, I have a "philosophical" question:
>> Is this an "ideal world" mapping, meaning - this is how we would map
>>
> the
>
>> 2.1 fields if we could (or if we did the conversion manually, or
>> semi-manually?); or, is it supposed to have a practical application
>> (i.e. specs for a conversion tool)?
>>
>> And this is the reason I'm asking: as I'm sure you know, I attempted a
>> mapping myself this past summer, with the practical intention of
>> building a conversion stylesheet. So I had to figure out what the
>> stylesheet would do. In some instances I found out that even though a
>> theoretical mapping was possible, it was not feasible in practice.
>> Examples would be "concept" and "universe" at variable level - if we
>> created an entry for each concept and universe statement found under
>> variables, we would end up with identical entries repeated at nauseam
>>
> in
>
>> the schemes, with the same content but different IDs! We would also be
>> unable to use the in-built hierarchy in the universe scheme, since a
>> machine would not be able to establish whether a certain universe
>> (expressed in 2.1 as a string) is a child of another, or else. The
>>
> same
>
>> thing applies to some of the responsibility statements in DDI 2.1 - we
>> may have the same organization as author, producer, distributor, and
>>
> if
>
>> we created organization entries for each time it appears, we would end
>> up with a lot of redundant entries in the Organizations Scheme.
>>
>> So, to me it is important at this point to establish whether we plan
>>
> to
>
>> release an "ideal" mapping, or a "practical" mapping, because this
>> knowledge would inform my evaluation of the current mapping.
>>
>> Thank you so much.
>> 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: Monday, January 12, 2009 5:59 PM
>> To: TIC list
>> Cc: Sanda Ionescu; tassoukis at iza.org; askitas at iza.org; Mary Vardigan
>> Subject: Re: Updated 2.1 to 3.0 mapping UPDATE
>>
>> In working with the mapping I have already found and corrected the
>> following errors:
>>
>> VersionResponsibiliyt corrected spelling to Responsibility
>> subTitl should be ../r:SubTitle not r:Title
>> altTitl should be ../r:AlternateTitle not r:Title
>> pPhysicalDataStructure should be p:PhysicalDataStructure
>> r:FundingInformation/r:Role should be r:FundingInformation at role
>> r:GrantNumber/r:Role should be r:GrantNumber at role
>> COMPLETED CONTENT FOR 1.2 and 1.3 as follows
>> 1.2 guide? PCDATA
>> s:StudyUnit/l:LogicalProduct/l:DataRelationship/r:Description
>> r:Description r:StructuredStringType Initial home will need to be
>> parsed
>> 1.3 docStatus? PCDATA s:StudyUnit/r:VersionRationale
>> r:VersionRational r:InternationalStringType
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090113/c8a87715/attachment.html
More information about the DDI-SRG
mailing list