<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Hello,<br>this is a really low-level inquiry. We have been using DDI 2 for some time because most of our files are legacy files with just one simple dataset and codebook. We've been using Colectica for Excel recently. Now we want to begin to work with DDI life cycle. <br><br>We have spent a lot of time with the legacy to life-cycle chart and now our eyes are crossed. We have reviewed the working papers and we know what kind of information we want to record. <br><br>What we really want is to be able to have a list of the tags we currently use and have something that will show us exactly where they are used in live-cycle. We are using Colectica Designer to move the DDI legacy XML over. We have spent a lot of time with the items on this page: <a href="http://www.ddialliance.org/Specification/">http://www.ddialliance.org/Specification/</a> and with a conversion tool but none of them provide what we want to see. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Also, the DDI site has numerous broken links or pages simply will not load. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Can anyone suggest a way that we can more easily see the ways that our current use of DDI legacy would map into DDI life-cycle? <br clear="all"></div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Libbie Stephenson, Director<br>UCLA Social Science Data Archive<br>University of California, Los Angeles<br>Box 951484<br>Los Angeles, CA. 90095-1484<br>310-825-0716<br><a href="mailto:libbie@ucla.edu" target="_blank">libbie@ucla.edu</a><br><a href="http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/issr/da" target="_blank">http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/issr/da</a><br><br>…[L]arge efforts are generally plagued by stupidity, error and corruption. But by the sheer act of stumbling forward, it’s possible, sometimes, to achieve important things. David Brooks, NY Times<br><br>When I was young and naïve, I believed that important people took positions based on careful consideration of the options. Now I know better. Paul Krugman, NY Times</div>
</div>