Skip to Content
Last modified by Artur K. on 2026/05/29 14:28
From version 1.12
edited by Helena K.
on 2026/01/15 12:41
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 1.17
edited by Helena K.
on 2026/01/15 12:50
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -325,36 +325,22 @@
325 325  
326 326  **Table 7. Data structuring approaches by level of data exchange**
327 327  
328 -|**Level of data exchange**|**Data structuring approa one DSD**|(% colspan="2" %)(((
329 -**ch**
330 -
331 -**master + satellite DSDs**
332 -)))|**multiple, indep. DSDs**
328 +|(% colspan="1" rowspan="2" %)**Level of data exchange**|(% colspan="4" rowspan="1" %)**Data structuring approach**
329 +|**one DSD**|(% colspan="2" %)**master + satellite DSDs**|**multiple, indep. DSDs**
333 333  |**within organization**|(((
334 -best for single-domain, single-purpose can be created on the
335 -
336 -fly from structured databases
331 +best for single-domain, single-purpose can be created on the fly from structured databases
337 337  )))|(% colspan="2" %)use if harmonization is important in covered domains or purposes or if such a set of DSDs is already available at international level|easier to do than master + satellite approach each domain/purpose can maintain DSDs independently can be created on the fly from structured databases
338 338  |**between national organizations**|(% colspan="4" %)the same applies as to the “within organization” scenario
339 -|**Level of data exchange**|(% colspan="3" %)(((
340 -**Data structuring approach**
341 -
342 -**one DSD master + satellite DSDs**
343 -)))|**multiple, indep. DSDs**
344 344  |**between int. organization and national organizations**|(% colspan="2" %)best for single domain, single purpose scenarios that are usually rather restricted with very clear specification of what needs to be exchanged|preferable over multiDSD approach in case of multi-domain and/or multi-purpose scenarios with highly correlated data flows for maintenance reasons|(((
345 -for multi-domain and/or multipurpose scenarios; only recommended if overlap of domains/purposes is minor (e.g. just w.r.t. cross-domain concepts)
346 -
347 -equivalent to multiple “one DSD” solutions, one for each domain / purpose
335 +for multi-domain and/or multipurpose scenarios; only recommended if overlap of domains/purposes is minor (e.g. just w.r.t. cross-domain concepts) equivalent to multiple “one DSD” solutions, one for each domain / purpose
348 348  )))
349 349  |**between international organizations**|(% colspan="3" %)comparable to “national to international” scenario|
350 350  |**dissemination to public**|(% colspan="2" %)for single-domain, single-purpose cases in more complex cases this may be the preferable approach for data discovery tools (one data structure to find and access all data)|(% colspan="2" %)(((
351 351  in multi-purpose or –domain scenarios:
352 352  
353 -if it is relevant for the public to see the relationship between the data structures: use master + satellites approach
354 -
355 -otherwise the multi-DSD option is preferable, although with the highest possible degree of re-use of code lists and concepts
356 -
357 -in both cases: important to include only concepts, code lists, and codes actually available / used by the data
341 +* if it is relevant for the public to see the relationship between the data structures: use master + satellites approach
342 +* otherwise the multi-DSD option is preferable, although with the highest possible degree of re-use of code lists and concepts
343 +* in both cases: important to include only concepts, code lists, and codes actually available / used by the data
358 358  )))
359 359  
360 360  In general, finding the “perfect” data structure is less important for bilateral data exchange. Independent, custom-tailored DSDs may do the job quite well, as harmonization and standardization are typically not of high importance. If the data exchange is just a part of a more comprehensive scenario (e.g. multi-purpose, multi-domain, gateway, or data-sharing scenarios), a master DSD with satellite DSDs is preferable.
... ... @@ -363,20 +363,17 @@
363 363  
364 364  **Table 8. Data structuring approaches by role in data exchange**
365 365  
366 -|**Role in data exchange**|**One DSD vs. master + satellite DSDs vs. multiple, indep. DSDs**
367 -|**Data provider**|It is easier to set up a data submission process against a single DSD (= less initial costs) than against multiple DSDs.
368 -|**Data collector**|(((
352 +|(% style="width:216px" %)**Role in data exchange**|(% style="width:1399px" %)**One DSD vs. master + satellite DSDs vs. multiple, indep. DSDs**
353 +|(% style="width:216px" %)**Data provider**|(% style="width:1399px" %)It is easier to set up a data submission process against a single DSD (= less initial costs) than against multiple DSDs.
354 +|(% style="width:216px" %)**Data collector**|(% style="width:1399px" %)(((
369 369  Data validation is easier with DSDs that only cover what needs to be collected. This is achieved via constraints in the master + satellites approach or via tailor-made independent DSDs. If a single DSD is used in a multi-domain or –purpose scenario, necessary constraints can be specified in the data flow definition or data provision agreement.
370 -
371 371  Further processing of collected data is more flexible and easier if relations are transparent and code lists are shared as in the one DSD or master + satellite DSDs approaches. The “shared context” created through the master DSD increases harmonization and standardization and this way facilitates combined usage of data.
372 372  )))
373 -|**Role in data exchange**|**One DSD vs. master + satellite DSDs vs. multiple, indep. DSDs**
374 -|**DSD maintenance**|(((
358 +|(% style="width:216px" %)**DSD maintenance**|(% style="width:1399px" %)(((
375 375  The complexity and initial costs for developing and maintaining master + satellite DSDs are higher than for independent DSDs as this involves managing constraints and managing impacts of changes in shared code lists to all DSDs.
376 -
377 377  In the multiple independent DSDs approach, development and maintenance efforts may be distributed. This can be seen as an advantage, but on the other hand requires coordination in case the DSDs are only partially independent (i.e. share some code lists).
378 378  )))
379 -|**End user (“the public”)**|For data discovery and retrieval the user needs to know what data is actually available (instead of what might be collected/disseminated with a certain data structure). This means that the potential sparseness should be hidden from the user. A reduced DSD derived from the data structure used in the background is more useful in most cases. Whether this is done via one DSD and constraints, master + satellite DSDs, or independent DSDs does not matter that much for the user.
362 +|(% style="width:216px" %)**End user (“the public”)**|(% style="width:1399px" %)For data discovery and retrieval the user needs to know what data is actually available (instead of what might be collected/disseminated with a certain data structure). This means that the potential sparseness should be hidden from the user. A reduced DSD derived from the data structure used in the background is more useful in most cases. Whether this is done via one DSD and constraints, master + satellite DSDs, or independent DSDs does not matter that much for the user.
380 380  
381 381  = 5 MINIMUM STRUCTURAL AND SEMANTIC REQUIREMENTS =
382 382  
... ... @@ -406,19 +406,19 @@
406 406  
407 407  **Table 9. Minimum requirements for DSDs~*~***
408 408  
409 -|**Question**|**Concept**|**COG**|**Code list**|**Time series Cross-section**
410 -|Where?|reference area|X|revision|mand. attribute or dimension
411 -|What?|“indicator”|-|domain|one or multiple dimensions
412 -|How?|unit of measure|X|development|mand. attribute or dimension
413 -|How?|unit multiplier|X|available|mandatory attribute
414 -|How?|decimals|X|available|mandatory attribute
415 -|How?|//adjustment//|X|development|mand. att. not relevant
416 -|When?|time period|X|format|dimension mand. att.
417 -|When?|time format|X|available|mandatory attribute
418 -|When?|time period – collection|X|development|mand. att. cond. att.
419 -|When?|data update – last update|X|time stamp|mandatory attribute
420 -|How often?|//frequency//|X|available|mand. att. or not relevant
421 -|(% colspan="2" %)How much? observation value|-|numeric|dimension measure
392 +|(% style="width:205px" %)**Question**|(% style="width:272px" %)**Concept**|(% style="width:178px" %)**COG**|(% style="width:270px" %)**Code list**|(% style="width:690px" %)**Time series Cross-section**
393 +|(% style="width:205px" %)Where?|(% style="width:272px" %)reference area|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)revision|(% style="width:690px" %)mand. attribute or dimension
394 +|(% style="width:205px" %)What?|(% style="width:272px" %)“indicator”|(% style="width:178px" %)-|(% style="width:270px" %)domain|(% style="width:690px" %)one or multiple dimensions
395 +|(% style="width:205px" %)How?|(% style="width:272px" %)unit of measure|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)development|(% style="width:690px" %)mand. attribute or dimension
396 +|(% style="width:205px" %)How?|(% style="width:272px" %)unit multiplier|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)available|(% style="width:690px" %)mandatory attribute
397 +|(% style="width:205px" %)How?|(% style="width:272px" %)decimals|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)available|(% style="width:690px" %)mandatory attribute
398 +|(% style="width:205px" %)How?|(% style="width:272px" %)//adjustment//|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)development|(% style="width:690px" %)mand. att. not relevant
399 +|(% style="width:205px" %)When?|(% style="width:272px" %)time period|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)format|(% style="width:690px" %)dimension mand. att.
400 +|(% style="width:205px" %)When?|(% style="width:272px" %)time format|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)available|(% style="width:690px" %)mandatory attribute
401 +|(% style="width:205px" %)When?|(% style="width:272px" %)time period – collection|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)development|(% style="width:690px" %)mand. att. cond. att.
402 +|(% style="width:205px" %)When?|(% style="width:272px" %)data update – last update|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)time stamp|(% style="width:690px" %)mandatory attribute
403 +|(% style="width:205px" %)How often?|(% style="width:272px" %)//frequency//|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)available|(% style="width:690px" %)mand. att. or not relevant
404 +|(% colspan="2" style="width:477px" %)How much? observation value|(% style="width:178px" %)-|(% style="width:270px" %)numeric|(% style="width:690px" %)dimension measure
422 422  
423 423  ~*~*Concepts in //italics// are only relevant for time series DSDs. An “X” in the COG column means the concept is defined in the COG. Code list “development” means that the SWG will develop a code list to be recommended in the COG; “revision” means that the code list is recommended by the COG and under revision by the SWG; “format” means that a format is defined by another concept; “text”, “time stamp”, and “numeric” provide data types used for uncoded concepts.
424 424  
... ... @@ -426,25 +426,19 @@
426 426  
427 427  **Table 10. Suggested additional concepts for certain scenarios~*~***
428 428  
429 -|**Question**|**Concept**|**COG**|**Code list**|**TS CS**|**Scenario**
412 +|**Question**|**Concept**|**COG**|**Code list**|**TS**|**CS**|**Scenario**
430 430  |Who?|compiling agency|X|development|(((
431 -conditional conditional
432 -
433 - (sibling) (obs. level)
434 -)))|data provider different from data compiler
414 +conditional (sibling)
415 +)))|conditional (obs. level)|data provider different from data compiler
435 435  |Who?|(((
436 -confidentiality
437 -
438 -status – observation
439 -)))|X|available|mandatory (obs. level)|except dissemination
440 -|How?|observation status|X|available|conditional (obs. level)|except orig. collection
417 +confidentiality status – observation
418 +)))|X|available|(% colspan="2" rowspan="1" %)mandatory (obs. level)|except dissemination
419 +|How?|observation status|X|available|(% colspan="2" rowspan="1" %)conditional (obs. level)|except orig. collection
441 441  |How much?|(((
442 -//observation pre-//
421 +//observation pre-break value//
422 +)))|-|numeric|cond. (obs.)|not relevant|except orig. collection
423 +|What and how?|//time series title//|X|text|cond. (TS)|not relevant|dissemination
443 443  
444 -//break value//
445 -)))|-|numeric|cond. (obs.) not relevant|except orig. collection
446 -|What and how?|//time series title//|X|text|cond. (TS) not relevant|dissemination
447 -
448 448  ~** The legend of Table 9 applies to Table 10 as well. The suggested attachment level of attributes (if any) is provided in parentheses in the TS (time series) or CS (cross-section) columns. In case an attribute does not vary at that level in a certain use case, it should be attached at the highest possible level.
449 449  
450 450  == 5.2 Attribute attachment levels and definition of groups ==
... ... @@ -466,10 +466,8 @@
466 466  * //ID//: a unique identifier of the message
467 467  * //Test//: a Boolean attribute that indicates whether the message is for test purposes or not
468 468  * //Prepared//: the date the message was prepared
469 -* //Sender//: the identification of the organization that is transmitting the message
446 +* //Sender//: the identification of the organization that is transmitting the message (recommended: code from the agency code list in the SDMX COG)
470 470  
471 -(recommended: code from the agency code list in the SDMX COG)
472 -
473 473  From a business perspective, the inclusion of the //Name// element is highly recommended, as it can help to understand the purpose of the exchange message. Other header elements such as //Receiver// are optional.
474 474  
475 475  = 6 STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE =
... ... @@ -480,13 +480,15 @@
480 480  
481 481  Figure 1 provides an overview of the overall process. As a first step, the context of the data exchange(s) that should be covered by the DSD(s) is defined in terms of purpose, domains, level of exchange, type of data, type of recipient, role of in data exchange, process pattern, and GSBPM phase (see Figure 2). Since reusing existing artefacts is one of the guiding principles, the second step identifies existing DSDs that may be reused (see Figure 3). In case relevant DSDs are available, their suitability in the present context is evaluated in step 3. Aspects to be taken into account are concept coverage, concept roles, attribute attachment levels, and code lists (see Figure 4). Step 4 is subject to the outcome of step 3. In case of a favorable assessment, the DSDs are simply reused. If the DSDs are partly suitable, modified versions can be derived. See section 2. for a summary of possible DSD modification scenarios. If the DSDs are not suitable or if no relevant DSDs are available at all, new DSDs will be defined as described in section 3. Finally, supporting artefacts such as data flow definitions and data provision agreements are defined (see Figure 5).
482 482  
458 +(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
459 +[[image:1768470533088-795.png]]
483 483  
484 484  (% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure1.OverviewoftheDSDdesignprocess" %)
485 485  Figure 1. Overview of the DSD design process
486 486  
487 -
488 488  Figure 2 summarizes the characteristics of the data exchange context that is defined in step 1. These characteristics affect the decision on the data structuring approach that is part of the process of defining the concepts of a new DSD (step 4.3. in Figure 1; see Figure 7 in section 2.).
489 489  
466 +[[image:1768470575978-226.png]]
490 490  
491 491  (% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure2.Characteristicsofdataexchangecontext" %)
492 492  Figure 2. Characteristics of data exchange context
... ... @@ -493,20 +493,23 @@
493 493  
494 494  Figure 3 recaps the priorities given to different types of existing DSDs when searching for candidates for reuse in step 2. Global DSDs maintained by the SDMX consortium are ranked the highest. They can be found via the Global SDMX Registry.
495 495  
473 +(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
474 +[[image:1768470596130-305.png]]
496 496  
497 497  (% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure3.PriorityrankingofexistingDSDsforreuse" %)
498 498  Figure 3. Priority ranking of existing DSDs for reuse
499 499  
500 -
501 501  Figure 4 summarizes the aspects to be considered in the assessment of the suitability of existing DSDs in step 3. For a detailed description of the cases of partial unsuitability see section 2.1. above.
502 502  
481 +(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
482 +[[image:1768470626558-321.png]]
503 503  
504 504  (% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure4.AspectsofDSDsuitability" %)
505 505  Figure 4. Aspects of DSD suitability
506 506  
507 -
508 508  Figure 5 lists the most relevant artefacts required in addition to a DSD, its concept scheme, and code lists.
509 509  
489 +[[image:1768470646456-652.png]]
510 510  
511 511  Figure 5. Supporting artefacts
512 512  
1768470533088-795.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.helena
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +48.6 KB
Content
1768470575978-226.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.helena
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +95.8 KB
Content
1768470596130-305.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.helena
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +44.4 KB
Content
1768470611326-907.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.helena
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +51.5 KB
Content
1768470626558-321.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.helena
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +51.5 KB
Content
1768470646456-652.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.helena
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +32.7 KB
Content
© Semantic R&D Group, 2026