<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Hi Wendy</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">The following are not comments, but questions (so ABS can progress to comments).</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">I remember talking with Arofan many months ago and he mentioned Data Elements were being added to DDI 3.2 to capture more "timeless" (eg don't change from reference period to reference period) aspects of Variables.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Heather has noted that the proposed specification for Data Element has "grown" between the PDF included in the initial release of PR documentation (Doc1) and the latest document (Doc2) you circulated. This growth does not appear to be simply a symptom of the Doc2 proposal aligning with Ed 3 of 11179 (for example, ValueDomain, which is in Doc2 but not Doc1, exists in Ed 2 of 11179 also.)</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Whether the Doc2 proposal is overkill depends on why Data Element is being added to DDI and the expected use of it within DDI. The Doc1 specification would not allow a "fully functional" 11179 Data Element to be defined within DDI. The Doc2 specification comes a lot closer to permitting that. </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Then again, we still have VariableRepresentation available for a variable. Presumably providing relatively detailed Value Domain information for the DataElement (eg a CodeListReference) associated with a Variable is not an alternative to populating VariableRepresentation for the Variable itself?</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">I quite like the Doc1 approach (and even the DataElementConcept approach in 3.1) because if an implementer has a store outside DDI that defines and manages DEs (DECs) fully in accordance with 11179 they can reference these information objects from within DDI without importing too many 11179 constructs/structures into DDI itself.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">If the intent were to be able to "carry around" more 11179 content within DDI, however, then the Doc2 approach supports that.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">There could be some merit to the Doc2 appropach - although it seems to create risks of</font>
<ul type="disc" style="padding-left: 18pt">
<li><font size="2" face="sans-serif">duplication (in different forms) of information between the structural definition of the DE and the structural definition of the Variable</font>
<li><font size="2" face="sans-serif">the need for practice guidelines on, eg,</font>
<ul type="disc" style="padding-left: 18pt">
<li><font size="2" face="sans-serif">the level of consistency expected between the "overlapping" structural information for CodeListReferences and VariableRepresentations</font>
<li><font size="2" face="sans-serif">the need for agencies who do focus on DataElements to populate the Variable object to a level were it will be interoperable with other DDI implementations </font></ul>
</ul>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Was the intent of implementing DataElement in 3.2 that DDI should be able to act as a "lite" implementation of that region of the 11179 metamodel or was it more that content in DDI should be able to integrate with an external implementation of that region of the 11179 metamodel?</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">A "sleeper" issue also may be that the DE proposal (even in the Doc1 specification potentially) carries some information that (if DDI aligns with 11179) really belongs on an updated version of the DEC object within DDI rather than (only) being built into the new DE object. </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Cheers</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Al</font><br>
<br>
<img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=45BBF1A1DF8B12B38f9e8a93df938@abs.gov.au" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for Wendy Thomas ---15/03/2013 12:10:47 PM---Dear Dan G. Al, Heather, Arofan, Jeremy, Dan, Tim, Heather, "><font size="2" color="#424282" face="sans-serif">Wendy Thomas ---15/03/2013 12:10:47 PM---Dear Dan G. Al, Heather, Arofan, Jeremy, Dan, Tim, Heather, and Sophia, As a follow-up to the earlie</font><br>
<br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">From: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Wendy Thomas <wlt@umn.edu></font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">To: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"DDI Structural Reform Working Group." <ddi-srg@icpsr.umich.edu>, Data Documentation Initiative Users Group <ddi-users@icpsr.umich.edu>, Alistair Hamilton <alistair.hamilton@abs.gov.au>, Heather Purcell <heather.purcell@abs.gov.au>, Tim.Dunstan@statcan.gc.ca, Dan Gillman <gillman.daniel@bls.gov>, "Kuan, Sophia [USA]" <kuan_sophia@bah.com>, </font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Date: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">15/03/2013 12:10 PM</font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Subject: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re: Data Element Discussion - Mantis Issue 543 and related</font><br>
<hr width="100%" size="2" align="left" noshade style="color:#8091A5; "><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">Dear Dan G. Al, Heather, Arofan, Jeremy, Dan, Tim, Heather, and Sophia,<br>
<br>
As a follow-up to the earlier documents trying to frame the issues<br>
around DataElement I have read through the new edition of<br>
ISO/IEC11179-3:2012(E) and provided a proposal for reworking<br>
DataElement. While I don't think this is its final form, I thought<br>
that having something concrete to react to would be useful. Please see<br>
the new documents attached to Mantis Issue 543.<br>
<br>
DataElementProposal_20130312.docx discribes the reasoning behind the<br>
outline of the proposed structure<br>
DataElementProposal.txt is a draft of an XML schema representation<br>
(note I realize there are some style issue in this rendering..its<br>
primarily to provide a draft to work with)<br>
<br>
The workplan is as follows:<br>
<br>
Provide feedback via email over the next week.<br>
Identify at the end of that time if we need a conference call. If so<br>
set one up for the following week.<br>
<br>
Please note that many of us are involved in NADDI the first week of<br>
April. As we have other issue areas that many of you are also<br>
interested in I am hoping to get this one moving along. The intent is<br>
not to cut short discussion, but to allow us to focus on a topic at a<br>
time. I appreciate your attention to this. Hope to hear responses over<br>
the next week.<br>
<br>
Primary questions to answer include:<br>
<br>
Does this address the issues identified in the document provided earlier?<br>
Is it compliant with ISO/IEC 11179-3:2012(E)?<br>
Does it meet the needs of DDI?<br>
Is it overkill?<br>
<br>
I expect a lively discussion :-)<br>
<br>
Wendy<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Wendy Thomas <wlt@umn.edu> wrote:<br>
> Dan G., Al, Heather, Arofan, Achim, Jeremy and Dan,<br>
><br>
> I have tried to frame the issues regarding the introduction of a<br>
> DataElement in DDI based on earlier discussions and a review of<br>
> ISO/IEC 11179-3. You will find a document on Mantis Issue 543 entitled<br>
> Purpose of DataElement in DDI.docx. Please review this document and<br>
> make comments back to the list. There are a number of issues in 3.2PR<br>
> that need in-depth discussion. DataElement is the first of these. Our<br>
> intent is to begin an on-line discussion among interested parties,<br>
> attempt to find an area of concensus and then set up conference calls<br>
> to finalize the details. Please note that this email has been copied<br>
> to the DDI-SRG list and DDI-Users list in order to inform others of<br>
> this discussion and to identify persons who should be involved further<br>
> in the discussion.<br>
><br>
> To DDI-SRG and DDI-User list members: If you have a vested interest in<br>
> how this new section of DDI is addressed in 3.2 PR, please let me know<br>
> and I will add you to the contact list. Note that we are dealing with<br>
> fine tuning what was proposed in DDI 3.2PR and therefore you will need<br>
> to have a familiarity with ISO/IEC 11179-3 and/or the maintenance of<br>
> DataElements for these discussions to be of benefit to you and to DDI.<br>
> Having said that, I wish you to know that I am very happy to address<br>
> any specific questions or related issues you may have with this<br>
> discussion of DataElements.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
> Wendy<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Wendy L. Thomas Phone: +1 612.624.4389<br>
> Data Access Core Director Fax: +1 612.626.8375<br>
> Minnesota Population Center Email: wlt@umn.edu<br>
> University of Minnesota<br>
> 50 Willey Hall<br>
> 225 19th Avenue South<br>
> Minneapolis, MN 55455<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Wendy L. Thomas Phone: +1 612.624.4389<br>
Data Access Core Director Fax: +1 612.626.8375<br>
Minnesota Population Center Email: wlt@umn.edu<br>
University of Minnesota<br>
50 Willey Hall<br>
225 19th Avenue South<br>
Minneapolis, MN 55455<br>
</font></tt><br>
<p><span style="font-family:'Arial';font-size:8pt;">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Arial';font-size:8pt; color:#000000;">Free publications and statistics available on www.abs.gov.au</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Arial';font-size:9pt; color:#000000;"> </span></p></body></html>