[DDI-users] InParameter/OutParameter and Binding in Questionnaires

[Wendy Thomas]

A couple of points about binding in 3.2:

First in answer to your earlier question regarding the path of the binding
from the question item to the control construct to the generation
instruction to the variable. You are correct that you could bind directly
from the variable to the question. However, a question item may be used in
many locations within a questionnaire (Age for example). It could be part
of multiple sequences, in a loop, etc. By specifying the link between a
question and its specific control construct the question can be reused
multiple times, and each time one can create a binding to its specific
usage.

Binding itself may be done within the construct of the item or at the time
of reference using the SourceParameterReference. This may not be as well
distributed as it should be. I see it in VariableType and
ConditionalTextType. This should be reviewed for a 3.3 version. Binding to
a question outparameter in an instrument should be done at the level of the
control construct to keep the question reusable. In short, you can make
your binding links as short as you wish for your specific needs. Binding
for objects intended for reuse should be done at their point of use when
possible.

Wendy

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Wackerow, Joachim <
Joachim.Wackerow at gesis.org> wrote:

> Relationship class is in DDI 4.
>
> The related documentation says “Relationship specification between this
> item and the item to which it is related.”
>
> Using this approach for binding would conflict with the idea of
> reusability because the reference to a another object would be part of the
> object itself.
>
>
>
> The concept of binding is in 3.2 a little different. Two identifiable
> parameters are referenced by the binding definition. But the binding is a
> child element of the element having a parameter. This seems to be limiting
> regarding reusability.
>
>
>
> Back to the usage in DDI 3.2:
>
> Any thoughts on the question regarding the binding definition only in the
> Sequence (the OutParameter of Question 1 and the InParameter of Question
> 2).
>
> This is a DDI 3.2 question.
>
>
>
> Achim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ddi-users-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu [mailto:
> ddi-users-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hoyle, Larry
> *Sent:* Freitag, 11. Dezember 2015 20:48
> *To:* Data Documentation Initiative Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DDI-users] InParameter/OutParameter and Binding in
> Questionnaires
>
>
>
> Would this be an application of the Relationship classes?
>
>
>
> --- Larry Hoyle
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ddi-users-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu [
> mailto:ddi-users-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu
> <ddi-users-bounces at icpsr.umich.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Wackerow, Joachim
> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 12:32 PM
> *To:* Data Documentation Initiative Users Group (ddi-users at icpsr.umich.edu)
> <ddi-users at icpsr.umich.edu>
> *Subject:* [DDI-users] InParameter/OutParameter and Binding in
> Questionnaires
>
>
>
> I’m wondering where the binding can be specified and which way is best to
> support reusability of QuestionItems.
>
>
>
> This topic is documented in the Technical Documentation of DDI 3.2. There
> is a related diagram on page 35 (and a related example XML file
> InOutBindingExample). This explains that binding is done in a chain from
> Question 1 up to the Sequence and then down again to Question 2. This shows
> all possibilities of defining bindings in this case.
>
>
>
> A simpler way would be to define the binding of directly in the Sequence
> (the OutParameter of Question 1 and the InParameter of Question 2). Then
> all other bindings are not necessary and the questions are totally
> reusable. This would also correspond to the actual use of these two
> questions in the sequence. Only then the binding is important.
>
>
>
> Are there any disadvantages to use this option?
>
>
>
>
>
> A more general thought: a definition of a binding is probably mostly of
> local use (here for questions in a sequence). Therefore it can conflict
> with the idea of reusability. In this sense, a better location for binding
> definitions would be an independent scheme. On the other hand, if the
> sequence should be reused like it is it makes sense to have the binding
> definition in the sequence.
>
>
>
> Achim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DDI-users mailing list
> DDI-users at icpsr.umich.edu
> http://lists.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 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-users/attachments/20151214/a09fee41/attachment.html