Page Comparison

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Jeremy, Larry, Dan S.
Talked through content of Q2 Review Status. Send out draft without tables ASAP so members can review content for major errors or omissions. Add tables and send to Jared for distribution prior to Executive Committee meeting on Tuesday.
DDI-Lifecycle
Discussed new issues related to content primarily in Citation and OtherMaterial. See individual issues:
DDILIE-3552
DDILIE-3551
DDILIE-3550
DDILIE-3549
DDILIE-3544

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Larry, Jeremy, Dan S., Dan G., Johan
D4Q2 report update
DDILife issues
DDILIFE 2935 - discussed - check on where this stands - resolved, need to write up ISO 15897
DDILIFE 2931 - discussed, steps outlined to provide details of option - review option - resolved
DDILIFE 2932 - discussed, steps outlined to provide details of option

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Dan S., Jeremy, Johan, Larry
Developers session at IASSIST so if there is a developer coming let them know
DDILIFE 3029 - discussed, approach decided
DDILIFE 2931 - discussed, steps outlined to provide details of option
DDILIFE 2932 - discussed, steps outlined to provide details of option
DDILIFE 2933 - not discussed
DDILIFE 2934 - waiting on focused machine actionable recommendation of needed content
DDILIFE 2935 - not discussed
Action: Wendy follow-up on Lion server with Jared

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Larry, Dan S., Jeremy, Johan
Review of DDILIFE issues associated with article by Larry and Achim posted on 2934 including: 2935, 2934, 2933, 2932, 2931

Worked on 2934 to clarify exactly what was being addressed and how to make this machine actionable information that could be used by statistical packages

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Dan S., Jeremy, Larry
The following have been entered in Bitbucket and need review:
3515
3494
3517
3514
DDI Lifecycle issues related to Variables were discussed:
3512 - wlt will write up edits
2935 - agreement, Dan S. will write up for review prior to entry
2934 - Discussed - will return to next week
3522 - agreement, needs to be entered

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Dan S., Larry

Q2 review wrap up:
What needs to be completed prior to report
Do we do a preliminary report (by end of February) with a follow up at annual meeting (some issues may not be resolved easily)
Working with other teams where issues were assigned
What should be included in report?

Discussion

• We can say at the end of Feb/March that this is the current status
• There are generic issues that are still being worked on
• If people are particularly interested in particular things they can follow up on issue tracker
• GSIM and RDF broader issues
• They would be resolved by next release???
• Respond to individual reporters
• Evaluation of the review system in TC
• Follow-up with other groups:
• We had 85 issues raised and were shoved off to various places
• Describe how we're going to manage over the next few months
• Follow up with each group getting a short paragraph from each group about status of these issues: Codebook requirements, things dependent upon other things, etc.

DDI-Life:
Reviewed for inclusion in 3.3 and basic comments
*=DDI3.3 priority, F=Future
*3532 - Measurement Unit
*3533 - Measure Definition
*3534 - Include documentation on DDI - CV availability
*3535 - INSEE use of Conditional text uses this as a means of dealing with language variations
F3536 - Incorporation of DDI-Views Process Pattern
F3537 - Rest Protocol
*3538 - Field for unavailability remarks /reason for data not being available
*R3539 - Controlled Vocabulary for Data Access
*3540 - Detailed Information about Individuals
Got to this point: members asked to review and identify any that should not be DDI3.3 Priority
3541 - Variable Quality
3542 - Detailed Information about Literature
3543 - Field for Products
3544 - Field for File Size
3545 - Add Measurement and Measurement Construct to Instruments
3548 - Would like to capture relationship "isReplicateOf" and opposite

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Dan S., Larry, Jon
Dan S. won't be available next week
D4W2-65
D4Q2-90
D4Q2-91
D4Q2-85

Note: XKOS review extended through 2017-02-15

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Johan, Larry, Jeremy, Jon, Guillaume, Dan S.

Q2:

Reviewed triage decisions, approving approaches

Lifecycle issues 3533 and up
Reviewed
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
Send out for comments on priority for 3.3
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
Timelines:
Create post Q2 closure to avoid confusion and post to DDI lists (TC will monitor):
Instead of having a review specific have a DDI4-TriageReview issue tracker.
Send out note:
Will start looking at these the 19th so if you still have items to get in do it by then.

• registry.ddialliance.org
• arpa domain name - applying for a URN namespace
• Other stuff has been up and running at the point of the agency resolution
• Do we need some additional instruction about registering an endpoint
• DNS service records are not something people use everyday
• The biggest question is what should the format be supported (if 3.1 is not supported going forward is this a problem)
• Should just be Agency, ID, Version
• Should be simplified to support the Agency, ID, Version content and not go into the detail
• There seems to be a lot of extra stuff such as late bound information
• Examples the type of item in URN should be removed (a 3.1 particular)
• Should focus on current and future versions that will all use the same URN format because that works with
• Very specific about which characters are allowed where and how agencies, versions, and ids can be defined - change to NCName to allow us flexibility in the future
• It should be opaque to the outside
• None of this is automatic - this is something a computer programmer will have to write
• Just makes it officially recognized - this is what the ddi namespace means
• The reason for doing this is to keep someone else from register ddi as a namespace
• Draft up a statement of work and pass around for review, followed by approval from Jared and send to Achim

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Dan S., Jeremy, Johan

AGENDA:

• Review process update
• TC assigned issues

Review process update

• Went over the general process and Triage results
• Reviewed report Dashboards created by Jon
• Discussed means of tracking issues assigned to other groups
  • completion
  • action taken
  • review of handling - was it really dealt with or just tabled
• ACTION: Jon and Wendy will look at options for better tracking of group actions

TC Assigned Issues

• Resolved the following issues in D4Q2: 5, 12, 15, 33, 34, 35, 44
• Fixes were made and once reviewed will be closed

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Jeremy, Dan S., Larry

• We should be able to follow post passing on to another working group so track within other groups and if they have been resolved.
• Link to issues as filed in other group
• Track / review linked use tags or labels as to which group it went to
• How does MT follow what other groups are doing? We could put in an issue in DMT with all the links
• If TC assigns an issue to a group we should be looking at how they are following up if only for reporting purposes and compliance with design rules
• Wendy will look at JIRA for possibilities, revise and/or provide implementation of Jon's workflow draft

ACTIONS

• watch for materials for comment over the next week

Dan and Jeremy unavailable next 2 weeks for calls

ATTENDEES: Larry, Dan S, Jeremy, Jon

Apologies: Johan, Wendy

AGENDA

JIRA Workflow

Jon didnt do - will do so for next week

DDILIFE-3511

Function and documentation of in/out parameters - for NEXT week

DDILIFE-3533

Need Wendy's views on implications on this. As it appears that it would mean connecting the NCube structures / references into the variable cascade.

It was though that the NCube structures were thought about solely to manage instance variables and this could mean extending in, 3.3. was not meant to be leading to major changes, so a judgement is needed here.

DDILIFE-3532

Adding MeasurementUnit to RepresentedVariable makes sense for ValueRepresentation (not for CategoryScheme - though Larry raised whether this might be a use case).

Agreed to look at other elements in RepresentedVariable to make sure that other elements should not also be included

Other elements on VariableRepresentation are:    

VariableRole?,

r:WeightVariableReference*,

StandardWeightReference?,

ImputationReference?,

ConcatenatedValue?,

r:ProcessingInstructionReference?,

(r:ValueRepresentation | r:ValueRepresentationReference)?,

MissingValuesReference?,

r:ContentDateOffset?,

r:AggregationMethod?

Also, whether there is any interaction as a consequence of DDILIFE-3512 and 3503

DDILIFE-3529

For discussion next week

#theme-header {display: none;}

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Olof, Larry, Jon, Johan, Jeremy, Dan S.

AGENDA:

• Add enter to JIRA  project workflow used by DDI-Life and DDI-Codebooks - Wendy
• Is there a way to get a database dump from Lion? Yes Johan can arrange to have by next week.

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Jeremy, Dan S., Larry

Reviewed process for managing the Q2 review process. No changes or additions. Will revise during process as needed.

Discusses overall work flows and work activities of the DDI Alliance in terms of interface with TC activities and responsibilities. Discussion based on conversations with individual members over the past month. Summary of discussion will be written up and distributed to TC members for editing and further action. Topics covered:

• Use of JIRA as a means of input between groups
• Better discipline in use of JIRA (number of items stuck in "in process" mode is disquieting)
• Clearer more concise goals in working groups with timelines
• Clarifying management roles between and within groups - expectations of group leaders and members
• Balance between concrete outputs in the short term and support for more conceptual discussions/work

• Proposal was that be one or two basic grids and then others built by hand
• Roster or rows based on codelist - can have another kind of grid
• Allowing addition of simple label on grid - or new simplified grid alternative
• Guidebook to using QuestionGrids will be available in English - INSEE
  • found 3 types which they describe: roster type, one-dimension grid, two dimension grid, benchmark different representation of grid where modeling is fundamentally different
• A simplified grid would allow people to place labels where needed
• For next week:
  • Sketch or example of proposals
  • Suggestions for what we want to provide in terms of other grids (more generic and more straight-forward)

ATTENDEES:

• Why are only some representations
• [Instance]Variables and where they come from (question source, variable source, generation instruction, on the fly binding) - simplify and clarify
• Questions should reference the RepresentedVariable to clarify the flow of information even when specific bindings are not being done
• You need to be able to do this from multiple response questions - should these forms of bindings be associated with representation
• Address how data is actually captured (ABS scenario where each item in a code list is a binary response)
• In some cases we need references to the variable and some to specific representation or value in representation.
• Need to differentiate support for documentation and for production/automated processing
• Documentation: If you are doing X use A, if you are doing Y use B, etc.
• Separating out types of Question Grids and their uses
• Embedding different formats in StructuredText in DDI - problems of the XHTML in the string, problem of users of Latec, Markdown, etc. The thinking was to be able to control it, but the issues is that people have difficulties with that or would like other formats. How do you embed XHTML in RDF? They have in theory some of these constructs. There is something in OWL but its not often used so what is the value of this? Some people like to have the set way of separating content in lists, headers etc. There might be a solution of removing the XHTML within the standard. Caused problems with autoclass generation.

• Think about the multiple response issue and how to solve it
• Pull out the JIRA issues; whats been resolved; what needs to be reevaluate
• Additonal managed representations options

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Achim, Dan S., Jeremy, Dan G., Flavio

Update on RDF Vocabularies

• Reviewed list of information needed to get RDF vocabularies out for review
• Links will be to DDI Alliance site pages www.ddialliance.org/Sepcification/RDF/Discovery    ../XKOS
• Get current XKOS version from Franck as well as link to implementation
• DISCO - Missy is an implementation
• Verify Franck availability during review period.  Franck and Dan G. will do XKOS follow-up
• Thomas Hartmann and Benjamin Zapilko will do DISCO follow-up
• Review will be for 8 weeks with reminder at mid-point to get comments in
• Double check to see who the announcement comes from  (TC and/or Director)

Update on Q2 work

• Patterns issues:
  • if we go back to the previous way should not cause a major problem
  • How we use the pattern and how its realized - we need to be minimally happy with it
• Statistical Classification needs to be redone, Data Description, Format is more preliminary (put out with caveat of only CSV and Fixed), Agent
• Could take 3 weeks instead of 2 - Can we get some of this through as a flow for the purposes of documentation?
• List of documents that need review for accuracy - make a google doc to work on with sections
• A thing we could call out is whether the approach to patterns make sense

Preparation for discussion on Questions in 3.3

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Larry, Flavio, Jeremy, Jon

Reviewed documents on Cardinality Rules and revisions to Identifiable and Annotated Identifiable

Finalized documents and sent to MT

• Use of Annotation as other than annotation of the metadata class; i.e. citationOfDataFile  Datatype=Annotation
• Probably would like to retain Annotated as a ComplexDataType

• Things that have intellectual content and need to be discoverable in their own right should be AnnotatedIdentifiable
• Example: A CodeList would need annotation as would the categories that are being coded are concepts with intellectual content, however the "Code" attached to it only intellectual meaning within the context of the CodeList and if it needs identification should just be Identifiable.

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Dan S., Jeremy, Dan G., Johan, Achim

AGENDA:

• Summer schedule
• DDILIFE-3527 Ornulf's paper
• Update from Sprint and IASSIST

SCHEDULE:

Vacations:

• Jon - July 2-24
• Johan - all of July
• Dan S - June 23
• Achim - August
• Jeremy - Sept 29
• Dan G - August sometime

Activities and due dates:

• June 9 - 15 Finalize RDF for review
• June 16 - 22 RDF Vocabulary page set up
• June 23 - 29 RDF Vocabulary public review
• June 30 - July 6 Q2 set up pages/JIRA; Q2 request issues
• July 7 - 13 3.3 question structure resolution; Q2 pre-announce
• July 14 - 20
• July 21 - 27 Q2 development release
• July 28 - Aug 3
• Aug 4 - 10 Codebook request issues
• Aug 11 - 17 3.3 schemas
• Aug 18 - 24 3.2 documentation; 3.3 documentation
• Aug 25 - 31 3.3 review
• Sep 1 - 7
• Sep 8 - 14 Codebook set up pages/JIRA;
• Sep 15 - 21 Codebook pre-announce
• Sep 22 - 27
• Sep 28 - Oct 5 Codebook development release

DDILIFE-3527

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Larry, Dan S., Jeremy, Jon

DDILIFE 3525/3526:

Discussion centered on both the specific issues and a more general review of Questions and Question Grids in 3.3. In particular we are trying to limit backward incompatible changes, but at the same time want these to work at least for the known/general use cases. Dan S. is doing a review of how and where particularly grids are used so we can define a set of use cases we need to meet. These will drive our review of the Question and Question Grid structures.

We are clear about the problems presented and will include these in the general review needs.

ANNUAL REPORT:

Identified items to be included in annual report. Wendy will draft and send around for final comments or additions.  Included were items focused on last year and those that would be focused on next year.

Noted meeting with Sanda and Taina in Bergen. Any Controlled Vocabulary issues that others would like raised should be sent to Wendy before 31 May.

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Larry, Dan S., Jeremy

DDILIFE 3525 tabled until next week

TC review of MT materials for review

Since that review we come up with the idea of platform specific ADD TO list on Status Report:

 https://ddi-alliance.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DDI4/DDI+4+Q1+Development+Draft+-+Comment+and+Review?preview=/491690/2064406/Status%20report.docx

• PSM for each XML and RDF (others when available)
• Binding rules for each XML and RDF (others when available)
• Is everything that is in conceptual model being carried forward (PIM to PSM lossless)?
• Is everything that is in Drupal being carried forward to the PIM?
• Is each thing in the Drupal Class form being carried into PIM?  Where is the code for creating the Drupal (PHP behind the Drupal)  Visability of tools and scripts - a link and some instructions on how to obtain it  Is this another delivery object?  Could obtain comments on production line?   Not the generation of XMI itself - Check with Olof for location of PIM creation code 

Added to Capability Metrics:

• Current model ability to cover existing DDI-C, DDI-L, and GSIM classes  
• Responsiveness to new areas of interest and coverage of those areas

These should be commented on in the status report

REVIEW PAGE:

• Have people on different content model teams make a list of key things: why things were still done in a specific way; issues still under discussion; issues that resulted in multple possible approaches
• add this to the Q2 "how to review page"
• REMOVE Special Issues section and move up the list of related documents (fewer as more of this may be in documentation)

TC 2 week turnaround once delivered from MT to do the Status Report

If anything is frozen we need to be explicit about that - need decision from MT about Freezing/period for Freezing part or all of Drupal

TO DO List:

• Inform MT and AG about required turnaround time for publishing Development Review package
• Get decision from MT regarding Drupal freeze
• Send email to all groups modeling packages that are in the Q2 review (ask MT regarding previously published packages)

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Larry, Dan S., Jeremy, Jon

DDILIFE-3525

General comment: we may want to do a users survey and see what kinds of grids are supported then either create a one-grid to rule them all or a set of grids that address simple standards cases and then more specified complex types. This would be good prep for DDI4 discussion. Dan will survey what's being supported.

DDI has always tried to the logical form of the questionnaire to be multi-model and some of this seems to be large screen and paper. A separation of the logical and display when we choose to go into display.

ACTION: Dan will do the survey and Wendy will review the specific issue for next week

Review and update of Task List on TC page

• Adjusted dates for development reviews (DDI4), RDF vocabularies and 3.3
• WLT - review Design Principles document against original MF principles list for completeness, bring any outstanding issues to TC next week
• Set process to transfer an Agency ID - Talk to Jared on writing up a procedure on this
• Jon will have draft of 3.2 high level document update ready for TC review soon - Once reviewed this can be an expedited sub-minor version change; follow-up would be to work with Training Group on developing content for Use Cases/User Guide

Next weeks agenda:

• DDILIFE-3525
• Any work resulting from review work above
• Process for reviewing material from Modelling Team for publication

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Achim, Jeremy, Dan S., Jon, Johan, Larry

Design Principles:

document under discussion 

• added Conceptualization  to 3rd principle under Capability
• Discussed possible metrics and further steps

Documentation:

• Readability score
• Acronym usage
• Structure of documentation to reflect principles -- easy to mark as having or not
• Quality is empirical so there needs to be a measure of use

Design:

• proportion of classes that carry forward
• change information
• time between updates in relationship to the number of changes
• metrics on JIRA issues
• is there a way to use labels in JIRA to identify an issue with a design principle
• is there a way to tie up usage of DDI to responsiveness principle?
• complexity - how deeply nested are classes in the model - gratuitous complexity
• compatibility with previous versions

Capability:

• ?

ACTIONS:

• Give to MT but also present to Scientific Board for support and further metric development
• Compare design principles to design principles to see if they conform
• What are the consequences of non-compliance
• Compare these against the earlier design principles

Functional Views documents - See DMT-59, DMT-34

PHDD comparison and Public Review: discussion

• Does it make sense to put PHDD into public review and possible eventual publication?
• Data Description group will review content.
• Core features to describe a CSV should be done in common ways
• Fixed record length data
• A case with multiple records
• Rich set of validation features and to deal with messy CSV data
• Put out for public review, raise the issue and ask for comment
• There is quite an overlap so a bit inclinded not to go out for public review - lh
• There are some differences such as multi-record cases, tables for egyptian spread sheets
• Overall W3C is richer
• PHDD and Disco are intermediate specs
• Is there a means of interacting with W3C to expand spec - their scope was strictly CSV files; we've missed their comment period
• Maybe just focus on DDI4
• Would it be better to amend the extend the existing W3C
• If they are using the RDF recommendation they could just use the W3C tools
• We could go into public review to collect comments and get in touch with W3C community and hold the decision to publish
• Who would use PHDD in the interim? -- Possible users would only be in the DDI community who are using legacy data and RDF
• Raises the question of how we absorb other standards - this is a major usecase for use of other specifications in DDI4 (on the model level and on the RDF level)
• We have two or three solution paths on the table but they have been parked
• Timing: we need to be in a position that at Dagstuhl we have a firm decision to take forward. Can we have a side meeting in Norway to frame the open questions and issues.
• W3C approach: 2 independent implementations that are interoperable - subsets of pieces of releases
• Public review: strategic use of review to get in touch with W3C people, need to frame the issue in a paragraph for the public review
• When we look at the two they have a lot of overlap one would lean towards the W3C because of buy in. You'd end up dealing with the other pieces as extension of W3C.
• Probably just take XKOS and DISCO into review.
• Review of PHDD would take up time.

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Johan, Larry, Jeremy

AGENDA:

• DDILIFE-3521 added comment and recommended solution  Agreed to solution
• Getting response on 3521, 3513, and background report on 3524 to wrap up this work  
  • • 3521, 3513 agreed on  
    • 3524 still needs a few weeks - goal to get all this done before IASSIST
• Is there a decision yet on publication of PHDD vocabulary?  (which alternate vocabularies are seen as negating the need for PHDD?)  
  • follow up with Achim on publication decision   
    • Response: The current thinking is to describe the overlap/difference and to go with this into the review. Then we could collect some more opinions on this.   
    • This seems to me to be the best approach  wlt  
  • These are the vocabulary and model Achim has referred to
    •  https://www.w3.org/TR/tabular-metadata/  
    • https://www.w3.org/TR/tabular-data-model/
• Agenda items between now and IASSIST (28 April, 5, 12, 19 May)
  • Check to see if done:
    • Review and re-disseminate the documentation regarding approval of DDI Agency ID submission (2016-01)
    • Update of Dublin Core files in 2.5 (early in 2016)
  • Design Principles document from Dagstuhl 2015 - review of document and measurable assessment of materials from Modelling Team (2016) -- sent out put on next weeks agenda
  • Review of How make a View document  
  • Annotation - how far do you go with that

ATTENDEES:  Wendy, Michael Iannaccone, Achim, Jon, Dan G., Dan S., Larry, Flavio, Jeremy, Kelly

AGENDA: URL issues; DDILIFE 3511, 3516, 3513, 3521; RDF review

URL issues (with Michael Iannaccone from ICPSR)

Michael: Two things need to be resolved Is the current server compatible or be made compatible If the URL's can be made compatible with Druple

Michael will investigate Needs a set of all files we need to serve so we can ignore all of these paths He needs to test

Achim and Dan will provide URL for current files to Michael

The service they are on right now is $50/year and has been a reliable plateform, but it may not provide a lot of support An option at $32 a month would provide the support needed Possibly hosting on ICPSR server rather than U of Michigan - needs to look into

RDF Review:

XKOS is ready to go some delays with DISCO Achim will let us know when there is a firm date

DDILIFE Issues

3521 - ask Johan to respond

3511 - need response from Guillaume, Hilda, and Achim

3516 - only for PhysicalInstance

3513 - Time looks good people need to look at Geography

3524 - Dan and Jeremy need to report

Larry added comment to DMT-21 regarding duplication of Unit in Population as noted in today's discussion.

NOTE: Getting response on 3521, 3513, and background report on 3524 should wrap up issues work on 3.3. Jon and Wendy making major advancements on the documentation so we are making steady progress.

Who's going to be at NADDI?

Dan S.,  Jeremy, Wendy, Dan G., Larry, Arofan

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Achim, Dan S., Jeremy, Larry, Jon, Guillaume

AGENDA:

Q1-2015 Review Summary

• OK to release

URL Naming Scheme

• URLNamingSchemeForSpecifications_2014_02_19.dox
• Problem of content negotiation on ddialliance site
• We will have these issues on DDI 4
• Please read and put on next weeks Agenda
• There should be no technical issue with the ddialliance site hosting this as the configuration is done.
• https://github.com/linked-statistics/disco-spec/blob/master/.htaccess
• Contact Jared to get the right person on this call

DDI 3.3 issues

• Need to implement: 3507, 3514, 3515, 3518, 3522
• Decision made / need to implment: 3512, 3516, 3517, 3519, 3523

Remaining status:

• 3510 Dan is waiting for remaining items to be resolved prior to providing a schema for review
• 3511 Need background work - wlt
• 3513 Need background work - wlt
• 3521 Need background work - wlt
• 3524 Table for 1-2 weeks as this is a topic of discussion in some upcoming work for Dan and Jeremy. They will provide background information following their work.

NEXT WEEK:

• URL Naming Scheme
• Remaining DDI 3.3 issues

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Larry, Johan, Achim, Dan S., Jeremy, Jon

Final Review of DDI RDF Vocabularies: (summary document)

• Minimum 1 month public review
• Draft versions will be provided where they already are
• Only few final issues to be dealt with
• Issues is PHDD
• There are other recent vocabularies which seem to cover same content
• If so recommend withdrawal of PHDD unless it goes beyond, if we have additonal features we can get in contact with W3C
• Proposed timeline would work well with 3.3 and Q2-2016
• Continue to use GitHub for review and then move following review and publication
• Ben and Thomas would be available during review period and May for review and resolution of DISCO issues. Franck would deal with XKOS
• Issue of the Easter holiday. Add statement in review statement that if you plan to review and have a difficulty in meeting this time frame please contact....
• Thomas will leave GESIS at end of March and finalize PhD in March/April but is still willing to resolve issues. He will be unavailable after this period.
• Need to resolve the PHDD issue.

TC deadlines:

• Text for the release notice for Jared to send out. WT draft up from previous notices.
• Achim is on all other lists and can send it out in his name.
• Achim will send out pre-announcement on the RDF Vocabularies list and talk to Franck.

Controlled Vocabularies - Technical structures:

• How to use CV's in RDF?
• Proposed SKOS format and transformed Genericode to SKOS
• Some are hiearchical and SKOS can represent these as well as multilingual definitions
• Genericode is using a workaround to express hierarchies (dot delimiter); also for handling multi-lingual defintions
• Base Genericode tools won't understand this
• Current SKOS representation is RDF-XML
• This could be used as a standard technical format for future DDI CV's

Proposal:

• Should have RDF-XML as an additional format
• In future the SKOS format is the canonical format

Discussion:

• Need to align this with Custom Controlled Vocabulary package content
• There are several nice tools for visualizing
• How to produce these controlled vocabularies
• Need a production tool to produce SKOS RDF-XML
• Someone needs to do a sanity check to make sure the custom metadata doesn't have features that are not being captured in SKOS
• Compataiblity of SKOS controlled vocabularies and XSKOS

ACTIONS:

• Custom metadata review and compatibility with SKOS
• Compatibility with XKOS
• Input tool

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Larry, Jon, Achim, Jeremy, Dan S., Johan

AGENDA:
Last set of DMFQA issues - Structure of ComplexDataType Name, Definition and Description usage, movement of Definition from Member to Concept, Inheritance of ConceptualVariable from Concept

ComplexDataTypeName:
Multiple names 0..n
Each name needs a context (optional)

name
content = xs:string
context = EnumeratedValue whatever

• This is much clearer than using LocalID
• Place name on Concept and then where it is needed.

ACTION:

• A group of people are concerned with having a definition and/or description
• Put definition on Concept and make sure that the others that need it actually get it.
• DMT-56 has to really think about what it really means to have all these things being concepts as well as linking to concept (expand on this in the final report summary). Where in the Variable cascade it is more meaningful that it Measures a concept. See DMFQA-50, 25, 7 Breaking the inheritance chain between ConceptualVariable and Concept.
• Review all of them
• Distinction between definition and description. There are the people filling in the metadata and those who do the searches.

One way to test if this is acceptable is to go with what has been proposed in the table as agreeable and highlight it in the next review. This is the best solution we have and is it workable or unworkable and then go from there. Make sure this get clear in the review instructions. Especially from the search direction. Issue 41 suggested that only one or the other which was rejected and that there needed to be clear documentation and more disciplined use. Write up the two parts clearly.

When a description is used without a definition is the description documentation still appropriate?
 

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Larry, Dan S., Jeremy, Flavio, Achim

DMFQA-66,71 (attachments on 71)

Closed and sent to MT as DMT-59. General information provided for instructions to Business Modelers and users. Issues of common content PARKED in the MT.

DMFQA-28,41,53, 38 (attachments on 41

Resolved for recommendation 1 in renaming of Label and more clearly defined role of Name, definition, and description.

ACTION:

• Review use of definition if moved from Member to Concept, consider where classes receive their definition by a relationship to a Concept.
• Review structure of ComplexDataType Name as an extension of International String

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Jon, Larry, Johan, Jeremy, Dan S., Achim

DMFQA-71, 66:

Walked through and edited document Functional Views.docx on DMFQA-71

ACTION: review lion content in Utility and edit to reflect changes

SPRINTS

IASSIST: Marcel and Michelle will both be available to act as SprintMeister for IASSIST Sprint.

NADDI: Wendy and Jon are organizing. Please send any TC specific requirements for discussion or outputs to the list.

Q1 Review document:

Send comments to list and/or edits to document. Still need to resolve 2 sets of items before releasing (71,66  and Name/Label/Description, etc. issue)

NEXT WEEKS AGENDA: Please add to calendar

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Achim, Larry, Jay, Jon

AGENDA

• DDI-LIFE 3522, 3523, 3525
• NADDI Sprint

DDI-LIFECYCLE 3522

Agreed proposal from Wendy

addition of the following object to DateTimeRepresentationBase and ManagagedDateTimeRepresentation:

DateRangeLimits (0..1) type="Range"
Enter the Minimum and Maximum values of the valid date range in the format provided in DateFieldFormat.

DDI-LIFECYCLE 3523

Deferred discussion, as verbal input from Wendy required

DDI-LIFECYCLE 3524

Deferred discussion, general view was that this is possibly only needs documentation / examples, Seek views of Jeremy / Dan to see if this is a real world problem elsewhere.

Discussion on NADDI Sprint

There are enough people to make the Sprint work, focusing on a review of content and preparation for Q2 Release

Wendy and Jon will work on setup etc

Likely attendance is: Wendy, Arofan, Larry, Jon, Dan G (and possibly Jay)

Remote attendees: Barry, Oliver, Achim (possibly Olof)

Items for Next Week

a.       Deferred items from last week

b.      DMFQA – 71  Views: should they have a basic set of classes?

c.       DMFQA – 66  Functional Views: Usefulness of Functional Views

d.      IAssist Sprint Content 

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Achim, Jon, Dan S., Jeremy, Larry  

AGENDA: Remaining Q1 Issues:

Views and content

71 - Views: should they have a basic set of classes?

66 - Views: Usefulness of Functional Views

• [Wendy will get out a revision of a proposed solution later today for discussion next week]
• Once we've nailed that down, how does it gets injected?
• Still don't know why the views need the content If you want management of archival material in the class you need a "study or codebook" object which points to a class of the metadata that describes it.
• Continue to work on this one
• Make sure requirements are clear

ClassificationItem, Code and CodeList

52 - Unclear difference between ClassificationItem and Code

48 - So many ways to create a CodeList

• [should we just pass this on to MT? it may not get resolved until we see the bindings and can test it out.]
• move to MT as noted

Ability to provide a relationship to a Concept

50 - Review all classes that extend Concept for appropriateness

• [today]
• move to MT as noted

Name/Label, Definition/Description Issue

53 - Insufficient documentation for Designation

38 - Chapter 10, Designation, Relationhsip, P147

43 - InstanceVariable, RepresentedVariable, and ConceptualVariable should have semantic "name" property

41 - Redundant properties: definition and description

• [today]
• Used Label differently than was used in Statistical Packages. If we are unclear we need to adopt a clear document. the original point of the issue was if we are going to have to give the user a multipage document in order to use this we have failed. Could a description have a type? 0..n
• use Definition ONLY where it is appropriate. If there are places with Definition that needs a "description" has an Intent - describing purpose and usage
• InstanceVariable Name -  InstanceQuestionName - be able to specify a name on these
• Be able to specify a base name on ConceptualVariableName
• Label remains
• write up short version and implement - let MT review

Next week:

• A couple new DDILIFE issues (3522, 3523, 3524)
• DMFQA-71, 66

 ATTENDEES: Wendy, Achim, Guillaume, Jeremy, Jon, Larry

AGENDA:

• DDILIFE-3511
• Summary of TC Q1 review

DDILIFE-3511

• Multiple ways to work with OutParameters so we need guidence and
• Unclear about reuse - what parts of a question grid can be reused?
• Addressing an array must be more explicit
• Versioning of In and Out Parameters is a special case and needs to be addressed.
• How is the versioning different? The OutParameter is a means of providing input to another process/variable.
• General issue of reusability of OutParameters. The OutParameter can be different if it parent versions, or if the source context changes.
• It is a temporary variable and is intended as a pointer.
• A category is a definition of some text. If it changes it's version changes.

ACTION:

• Write the documentation completely with a variety of examples address different situation for OutParameters, Grid Types, and versioning situation.
• Provide guidance for use in all of the exmples
• Verify the reusable aspect of an OutParameter and and QuestionGirds.
• Does a 3rd dimension make sense in addressing the content of an OutParamter?

ADDITONAL comments:

• The more general issue of reusability for Questions: is the QuestionConstruct actually the instantiated Question. In DDI 4 we have the Represented Question.
• Is language an issue?
• Is the time span of this too long to put in 3.3? We need to wrap this up in a month (by end of Feb) or it goes to 3.4

Summary of TC Q1 review

• Finish up in next 2 weeks

Add minutes from 1/14
 

ATTENDEES:  Wendy, Larry, Jon, Johan 

DDILIFE 3620, 3504

ATTENDEES: Wendy, Johan, Larry, Jeremy, Dan S., Dan G., Flavio

Reviewed DDI Lifecyle issues 3504-3519 all but 3511 are now in process. 3520 will be addressed next week. 3521 was added based on discussions of 3511.

Members asked to review list of recommended changes from xs:integer to xs:noneNegativeInteger by next week DDILIFE-3504

Try to wrap up outstanding issues next week.