Changes for page Guidelines for SDMX Data Structure Definitions

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
• Attachments (0 modified, 0 added, 7 removed)
  • 1768470533088-795.png
  • 1768470575978-226.png
  • 1768470596130-305.png
  • 1768470611326-907.png
  • 1768470626558-321.png
  • 1768470646456-652.png
  • 1768470678965-391.png

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -325,22 +325,36 @@
325	325
326	326	**Table 7. Data structuring approaches by level of data exchange**
327	327
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**
	328	+|**Level of data exchange**|**Data structuring approa one DSD**|(% colspan="2" %)(((
	329	+**ch**
	330	+
	331	+**master + satellite DSDs**
	332	+)))|**multiple, indep. DSDs**
330	330	|**within organization**|(((
331		-best for single-domain, single-purpose can be created on the fly from structured databases
	334	+best for single-domain, single-purpose can be created on the
	335	+
	336	+fly from structured databases
332	332	)))|(% 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
333	333	|**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**
334	334	|**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|(((
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
	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
336	336	)))
337	337	|**between international organizations**|(% colspan="3" %)comparable to “national to international” scenario|
338	338	|**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" %)(((
339	339	in multi-purpose or –domain scenarios:
340	340
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
	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
344	344	)))
345	345
346	346	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.
...	...	@@ -349,17 +349,20 @@
349	349
350	350	**Table 8. Data structuring approaches by role in data exchange**
351	351
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" %)(((
	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**|(((
355	355	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	+
356	356	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.
357	357	)))
358		-|(% style="width:216px" %)**DSD maintenance**|(% style="width:1399px" %)(((
	373	+|**Role in data exchange**|**One DSD vs. master + satellite DSDs vs. multiple, indep. DSDs**
	374	+|**DSD maintenance**|(((
359	359	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	+
360	360	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).
361	361	)))
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.
	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.
363	363
364	364	= 5 MINIMUM STRUCTURAL AND SEMANTIC REQUIREMENTS =
365	365
...	...	@@ -389,19 +389,19 @@
389	389
390	390	**Table 9. Minimum requirements for DSDs~*~***
391	391
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
	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
405	405
406	406	~*~*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.
407	407
...	...	@@ -409,19 +409,25 @@
409	409
410	410	**Table 10. Suggested additional concepts for certain scenarios~*~***
411	411
412		-|**Question**|**Concept**|**COG**|**Code list**|**TS**|**CS**|**Scenario**
	429	+|**Question**|**Concept**|**COG**|**Code list**|**TS CS**|**Scenario**
413	413	|Who?|compiling agency|X|development|(((
414		-conditional (sibling)
415		-)))|conditional (obs. level)|data provider different from data compiler
	431	+conditional conditional
	432	+
	433	+ (sibling) (obs. level)
	434	+)))|data provider different from data compiler
416	416	|Who?|(((
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
	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
420	420	|How much?|(((
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
	442	+//observation pre-//
424	424
	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	+
425	425	~** 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.
426	426
427	427	== 5.2 Attribute attachment levels and definition of groups ==
...	...	@@ -443,8 +443,10 @@
443	443	* //ID//: a unique identifier of the message
444	444	* //Test//: a Boolean attribute that indicates whether the message is for test purposes or not
445	445	* //Prepared//: the date the message was prepared
446		-* //Sender//: the identification of the organization that is transmitting the message (recommended: code from the agency code list in the SDMX COG)
	469	+* //Sender//: the identification of the organization that is transmitting the message
447	447
	471	+(recommended: code from the agency code list in the SDMX COG)
	472	+
448	448	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.
449	449
450	450	= 6 STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE =
...	...	@@ -455,15 +455,13 @@
455	455
456	456	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).
457	457
458		-(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
459		-[[image:1768470533088-795.png]]
460	460
461	461	(% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure1.OverviewoftheDSDdesignprocess" %)
462	462	Figure 1. Overview of the DSD design process
463	463
	487	+
464	464	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.).
465	465
466		-[[image:1768470575978-226.png]]
467	467
468	468	(% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure2.Characteristicsofdataexchangecontext" %)
469	469	Figure 2. Characteristics of data exchange context
...	...	@@ -470,23 +470,20 @@
470	470
471	471	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.
472	472
473		-(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
474		-[[image:1768470596130-305.png]]
475	475
476	476	(% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure3.PriorityrankingofexistingDSDsforreuse" %)
477	477	Figure 3. Priority ranking of existing DSDs for reuse
478	478
	500	+
479	479	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.
480	480
481		-(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
482		-[[image:1768470626558-321.png]]
483	483
484	484	(% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure4.AspectsofDSDsuitability" %)
485	485	Figure 4. Aspects of DSD suitability
486	486
	507	+
487	487	Figure 5 lists the most relevant artefacts required in addition to a DSD, its concept scheme, and code lists.
488	488
489		-[[image:1768470646456-652.png]]
490	490
491	491	Figure 5. Supporting artefacts
492	492
...	...	@@ -494,10 +494,8 @@
494	494
495	495	Figure 6 briefly recapitulates the actions that can be taken to overcome partial unsuitability of DSDs. As far as possible, existing artefacts should be reused in this case. This means that even if a DSD cannot be reused as a whole, concepts and code lists from that DSD can be included in the new DSD by reference.
496	496
497		-[[image:1768470678965-391.png]]
	517	+**Figure 6. DSD modification scenarios**
498	498
499		-Figure 6. DSD modification scenarios
500		-
501	501	== 6.3 Defining new DSDs ==
502	502
503	503	In case no (suitable) DSD is available, the actual process of specifying a new DSD is started. Figure 7 depicts this process (step 4.3. in Figure 1). It encompasses the specification of concepts, code lists, and data formats. All three specification steps include the identification of already existing artefacts that could be reused or modified to satisfy the requirements at hand and the definition of new artefacts in case no suitable artefacts are detected. Several iterations of steps 1 (specification of concepts; see Figure 8) and 2 (specification of code lists; see Figure°13) may be necessary, including revisions of the decision concerning the data structuring approach. Finally all artefacts defined in the previous steps are put together into a DSD.

1768470533088-795.png

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-xwiki:XWiki.helena

Size

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-48.6 KB

Content

1768470575978-226.png

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-xwiki:XWiki.helena

Size

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-95.8 KB

Content

1768470596130-305.png

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-xwiki:XWiki.helena

Size

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-44.4 KB

Content

1768470611326-907.png

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-xwiki:XWiki.helena

Size

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-51.5 KB

Content

1768470626558-321.png

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-xwiki:XWiki.helena

Size

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-51.5 KB

Content

1768470646456-652.png

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-xwiki:XWiki.helena

Size

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-32.7 KB

Content

1768470678965-391.png

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-xwiki:XWiki.helena

Size

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-117.9 KB

Content