[DDI-users] DDI v2-1: elements TXT and CONCEPT

[Mark Diggory]

This appears to be a change that Matt Richardson and Sandra Ionescu  
has put into the schema (see revision 1.4 in the list.)

http://ddi-alliance.cvs.sourceforge.net/ddi-alliance/ddi/w3c/ 
Version2-1.xsd?view=log

Sanda and Matt, can you comment on this change in November 2005 which  
appears to deviate from the DTD?  I have a email archive that from  
that time period I've reviewed and not been able to determine if  
there was discussion concerning it?  Was there consideration if this  
is an error in the DTD technical Implementation of the Specification  
as well? Or was this even an appropriate change to have made in the  
w3c Schema implementation?

-Mark


On Jul 12, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Wendy Thomas wrote:

> For DDI 2.1 the cannonical version is the DTD. I will ask the guys
> handling this on the SRG to look into the problem and get back to the
> list. (they may be doing it already :)
>
> Wendy
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Fredy Kuhn wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a problem with the usage of sub element pairs 'txt' -  
>> 'concept' in DDI 2-1:
>>
>> The web pages 'Tree Structure' (*) and 'Whole Library' (**)  
>> display in DDI section 2 several of these pairs; example:  
>> <dataKind> 2.2.3.10.
>>
>> In schema 2-1, and according to Sourceforge history (***), these  
>> sub-elements were removed from study description elements, see  
>> revision 1.4:
>>
>> --- QUOTE ---
>>
>> The <txt> - <concept> pair illegally appears under <nation>,  
>> <geogCover>, <geogUnit>, <anlyUnit>, <universe>, <dataKind>,  
>> <timeMeth>, <sampProc>, <collMode>, <resInstru> in Study Desc.,  
>> also under <universe> 4.1.5 ... ...
>>
>> !!!----- <txt> and <concept> are VALID FIELDS under <varGrp>  
>> (4.1.2 and 4.1.3) and nCubeGrp (4.2.2 and 4.2.3) --------- !!!
>>
>> --- QUOTE END ---
>>
>> Thus, the TXT and CONCEPT tags are valid in DTD2.1, but not in  
>> schema2-1. Should we use them or not?
>>
>> Further more, by removing the sub-element <concept> from e.g.  
>> <datakind> or <sampProc>, how to markup the usage of a controlled  
>> vocabulary?
>>
>>
>> (*) Tree structure:
>> http://www.ddialliance.org/DDI/dtd/version2-1-tree.html
>>
>> (**) Whole library:
>> http://www.ddialliance.org/DDI/dtd/version2-1-all.html
>>
>> (***) Sourceforge DTD v2.1 (see revision 1.4):
>> http://ddi-alliance.cvs.sourceforge.net/ddi-alliance/ddi/w3c/ 
>> Version2-1.xsd?view=log
>>
>>
>> BTW: Looking at DDI-3, I'm asking me how elements for which we use  
>> a controlled vocabulary (CV), e.g. 'data collection mode', should  
>> be marked up, i.e. how to specify the CV. Could one of the  
>> 'experts' give me a hint? I'm not yet too familiar with DDI-3.
>>
>> Best regards
>> freddy
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DDI-users mailing list
>> DDI-users at icpsr.umich.edu
>> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-users
>>
>
> 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-users mailing list
> DDI-users at icpsr.umich.edu
> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-users

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark R. Diggory - DSpace Systems Manager
MIT Libraries, Systems and Technology Services
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Office: E25-131
Phone: (617) 253-1096