[DDI-SRG] [MRT] Model cleanup: string definitions

[Wackerow, Joachim]

Where exactly do you see interoperability issues with the suggested approach and Lifecycle and Codebook? I was not aware of any.
Cannot any DDI 4 string attribute be mapped to the appropriate items in the other specs?

Achim

From: Wendy Thomas [mailto:wlt at umn.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 18:05
To: Wackerow, Joachim
Cc: DDI - Structural Reform Group
Subject: Re: [DDI-SRG] [MRT] Model cleanup: string definitions

As a general question...particularly in terms of string content and date is there any concern for interoperability with Lifecycle and Codebook? There were reasons certain fields were not allowed to use structure.



On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 6:40 AM Wackerow, Joachim <Joachim.Wackerow at gesis.org<mailto:Joachim.Wackerow at gesis.org>> wrote:
The current approach of string types seems to be too complicated. The structured string types could be folded into the regular ones. Furthermore, there are some inconsistencies.
Diagrams on the current approach and the suggested approach are attached. Side note: XSD data type “date” is now used instead of a special DDI data type for date.

Please review the proposal and comment.

Achim

_______________________________________________
DDI-SRG mailing list
DDI-SRG at icpsr.umich.edu<mailto:DDI-SRG at icpsr.umich.edu>
http://lists.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 umn.edu<mailto:wlt at umn.edu>
University of Minnesota
50 Willey Hall
225 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-srg/attachments/20200203/6904f5f4/attachment-0001.html