Changes for page Guidelines for SDMX Data Structure Definitions

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -325,20 +325,12 @@
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	334	best for single-domain, single-purpose can be created on the fly from structured databases
335	335	)))|(% 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
336	336	|**between national organizations**|(% colspan="4" %)the same applies as to the “within organization” scenario
337		-|**Level of data exchange**|(% colspan="3" %)(((
338		-**Data structuring approach**
339		-
340		-**one DSD master + satellite DSDs**
341		-)))|**multiple, indep. DSDs**
342	342	|**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|(((
343	343	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
344	344	)))
...	...	@@ -346,11 +346,9 @@
346	346	|**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" %)(((
347	347	in multi-purpose or –domain scenarios:
348	348
349		-if it is relevant for the public to see the relationship between the data structures: use master + satellites approach
350		-
351		-otherwise the multi-DSD option is preferable, although with the highest possible degree of re-use of code lists and concepts
352		-
353		-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
354	354	)))
355	355
356	356	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.
...	...	@@ -359,20 +359,17 @@
359	359
360	360	**Table 8. Data structuring approaches by role in data exchange**
361	361
362		-|**Role in data exchange**|**One DSD vs. master + satellite DSDs vs. multiple, indep. DSDs**
363		-|**Data provider**|It is easier to set up a data submission process against a single DSD (= less initial costs) than against multiple DSDs.
364		-|**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" %)(((
365	365	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.
366		-
367	367	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.
368	368	)))
369		-|**Role in data exchange**|**One DSD vs. master + satellite DSDs vs. multiple, indep. DSDs**
370		-|**DSD maintenance**|(((
	358	+|(% style="width:216px" %)**DSD maintenance**|(% style="width:1399px" %)(((
371	371	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.
372		-
373	373	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).
374	374	)))
375		-|**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.
376	376
377	377	= 5 MINIMUM STRUCTURAL AND SEMANTIC REQUIREMENTS =
378	378
...	...	@@ -402,19 +402,19 @@
402	402
403	403	**Table 9. Minimum requirements for DSDs~*~***
404	404
405		-|**Question**|**Concept**|**COG**|**Code list**|**Time series Cross-section**
406		-|Where?|reference area|X|revision|mand. attribute or dimension
407		-|What?|“indicator”|-|domain|one or multiple dimensions
408		-|How?|unit of measure|X|development|mand. attribute or dimension
409		-|How?|unit multiplier|X|available|mandatory attribute
410		-|How?|decimals|X|available|mandatory attribute
411		-|How?|//adjustment//|X|development|mand. att. not relevant
412		-|When?|time period|X|format|dimension mand. att.
413		-|When?|time format|X|available|mandatory attribute
414		-|When?|time period – collection|X|development|mand. att. cond. att.
415		-|When?|data update – last update|X|time stamp|mandatory attribute
416		-|How often?|//frequency//|X|available|mand. att. or not relevant
417		-|(% 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
418	418
419	419	~*~*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.
420	420
...	...	@@ -422,25 +422,19 @@
422	422
423	423	**Table 10. Suggested additional concepts for certain scenarios~*~***
424	424
425		-|**Question**|**Concept**|**COG**|**Code list**|**TS CS**|**Scenario**
	412	+|**Question**|**Concept**|**COG**|**Code list**|**TS**|**CS**|**Scenario**
426	426	|Who?|compiling agency|X|development|(((
427		-conditional conditional
428		-
429		- (sibling) (obs. level)
430		-)))|data provider different from data compiler
	414	+conditional (sibling)
	415	+)))|conditional (obs. level)|data provider different from data compiler
431	431	|Who?|(((
432		-confidentiality
433		-
434		-status – observation
435		-)))|X|available|mandatory (obs. level)|except dissemination
436		-|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
437	437	|How much?|(((
438		-//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
439	439
440		-//break value//
441		-)))|-|numeric|cond. (obs.) not relevant|except orig. collection
442		-|What and how?|//time series title//|X|text|cond. (TS) not relevant|dissemination
443		-
444	444	~** 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.
445	445
446	446	== 5.2 Attribute attachment levels and definition of groups ==
...	...	@@ -462,10 +462,8 @@
462	462	* //ID//: a unique identifier of the message
463	463	* //Test//: a Boolean attribute that indicates whether the message is for test purposes or not
464	464	* //Prepared//: the date the message was prepared
465		-* //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)
466	466
467		-(recommended: code from the agency code list in the SDMX COG)
468		-
469	469	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.
470	470
471	471	= 6 STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE =