Changes for page Guidelines for SDMX Data Structure Definitions
Last modified by Artur K. on 2026/05/29 14:28
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
-
Attachments (0 modified, 0 added, 6 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Content
-
... ... @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ 61 61 62 62 === 2.1.3 Suitability of available DSDs and code lists === 63 63 64 -In case an existing DSD is close to but differs from what is needed, it may: {{{(i)}}}contain irrelevant concepts, (ii) lack some required concepts, (iii) use the concepts in different roles than required, (iv) deviate with respect to some of the code lists, or (v) contain pure dimensions when mixed dimensions would make more sense or vice versa. More complex situations that are combinations of several (or even all) of these five cases may occur as well. For example, an existing DSD could contain unnecessary concepts and lack other concepts at the same time.64 +In case an existing DSD is close to but differs from what is needed, it may: (i) contain irrelevant concepts, (ii) lack some required concepts, (iii) use the concepts in different roles than required, (iv) deviate with respect to some of the code lists, or (v) contain pure dimensions when mixed dimensions would make more sense or vice versa. More complex situations that are combinations of several (or even all) of these five cases may occur as well. For example, an existing DSD could contain unnecessary concepts and lack other concepts at the same time. 65 65 66 66 ==== 2.1.3.1 Irrelevant concepts ==== 67 67 ... ... @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ 243 243 244 244 The decision on content and number of concepts in a DSD usually leads to the question of how far the “//indicator//” dimension should be decomposed. There are some (cross-domain) concepts, such as geographical and temporal reference and unit of measure, that are relevant in most DSDs. Once those are defined (the usage of the SDMX COG is highly recommended!) the actual “//subject-matter//” or “//domain//” concepts remain. One option is to combine all those concepts into one “indicator” dimension which may make sense in certain scenarios, for example for smaller single-domain, single-purpose DSDs with few or no crossclassifications or for display in an end-user dissemination tool. The other extreme strategy is to decompose into as many components as possible by splitting any breakdown concepts from the core indicator concept. 245 245 246 -The range of options between the “//just one//” (mixed) and “//all component//” subject-matter dimensions approaches is subject to the comprehensiveness (i.e. size, coverage) of the data exchange that the DSD is being developed for. If using a “mixed dimensions” approach, rules for the composition of the mixed dimension(s) may be specified (e.g. concatenate concepts A, B, and C to get mixed dimension X), allowing their easy re-decomposition. In general composite dimensions should be avoided as previously recommended by the SDMX Technical Notes, but there are cases that suggest the usage of composite dimensions. Table 4 juxtaposes general pros and cons of the “//many pure concepts//” and “//fewer composite concepts//” approaches. 246 +The range of options between the “//just one//”// //(mixed) and “//all component//” subject-matter dimensions approaches is subject to the comprehensiveness (i.e. size, coverage) of the data exchange that the DSD is being developed for. If using a “mixed dimensions” approach, rules for the composition of the mixed dimension(s) may be specified (e.g. concatenate concepts A, B, and C to get mixed dimension X), allowing their easy re-decomposition. In general composite dimensions should be avoided as previously recommended by the SDMX Technical Notes, but there are cases that suggest the usage of composite dimensions. Table 4 juxtaposes general pros and cons of the “//many pure concepts//” and “//fewer composite concepts//” approaches. 247 247 248 248 **Table 4. General comparison of data structuring approaches** 249 249 ... ... @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ 315 315 316 316 The “one DSD” approach works best for single-domain and/or single-purpose scenarios. In more complex scenarios, more complex approaches are more suitable. Usage of the “one DSD” approach in a multi-domain or multi-purpose scenario actually means that one master DSD containing all concepts, code lists, and codes relevant in any (but most likely not all) domains and/or purposes is used by all domains and/or purposes without constraints. If a “many pure concepts” approach is used, the DSD will be sparse and require many “not applicable” values or structure maps. 317 317 318 -In those more complex scenarios, multi-DSD approaches have more potential. The “master DSD + satellite DSDs” approach imposes more restrictions and aims at a higher degree of content harmonization than the more loosely coupled (or even independent) multi-DSD approach. While the former specifies the concepts and code lists to be used by all derived DSDs, the latter is more flexible. Therefore, the master + satellites approach is suggested for data exchange scenarios with a high degree of harmonization/standardization required such as at the international level or between national and international organizations. Please note that what is termed “master DSD + satellite DSDs” approach here may also be implemented as master DSD plus constrained data flows with or without using structure maps. 318 +In those more complex scenarios, multi-DSD approaches have more potential. The “master DSD + satellite DSDs” approach imposes more restrictions and aims at a higher degree of content harmonization than the more loosely coupled (or even independent) multi-DSD approach. While the former specifies the concepts and code lists to be used by all derived DSDs, the latter is more flexible. Therefore, the master + satellites approach is suggested for data exchange scenarios with a high degree of harmonization / standardization required such as at the international level or between national and international organizations. Please note that what is termed “master DSD + satellite DSDs” approach here may also be implemented as master DSD plus constrained data flows with or without using structure maps. 319 319 320 320 Even in the multiple independent DSDs approach, sharing of concepts and code lists by reference is recommended. This may be problematic if additional codes are needed by certain DSDs, as neither the addition of codes to a code list used by reference nor the concatenation of multiple code lists included by reference is supported by the current SDMX Technical Standards. The only way of implementing “combined” code lists by reference is to reference each single code from each relevant partial code list. 321 321 ... ... @@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ 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 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 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 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" %)((( ... ... @@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ 340 340 341 341 * if it is relevant for the public to see the relationship between the data structures: use master + satellites approach 342 342 * 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 343 +* 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. ... ... @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ 367 367 368 368 Certain concepts can be broadly agreed upon as being relevant in any data exchange, although their roles may differ between scenarios. The SDMX Content-Oriented Guidelines define many of these cross-domain concepts and, thus, should be referred to for further details on their specification. 369 369 370 -In general, multi-purpose and multi-domain scenarios may require more concepts than single-purpose and/or – 370 +In general, multi-purpose and multi-domain scenarios may require more concepts than single-purpose and/or –domain scenarios. This mainly applies to subject-matter (or domainspecific) concepts and concepts that inform about the data source, provider, or process. 371 371 372 372 Exchanges between organizations, especially on an international level, typically require more concepts to cover context information, as data are transferred out of their usual context, meaning that users in the new context do not have the same knowledge of the data and may need additional background information. For exchanges of data within an organization, some context information may be common (implicit) knowledge so that it does not need to be made explicit in the data structure. 373 373 ... ... @@ -389,20 +389,19 @@ 389 389 390 390 **Table 9. Minimum requirements for DSDs~*~*** 391 391 392 -(% style="width:1308.83px" %) 393 -|(% style="width:205px" %)**Question**|(% style="width:272px" %)**Concept**|(% style="width:178px" %)**COG**|(% style="width:270px" %)**Code list**|(% style="width:290px" %)**Time series**|(% style="width:221px" %)**Cross-section** 394 -|(% style="width:205px" %)Where?|(% style="width:272px" %)reference area|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)revision|(% colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="width:478px" %)mand. attribute or dimension 395 -|(% style="width:205px" %)What?|(% style="width:272px" %)“indicator”|(% style="width:178px" %)-|(% style="width:270px" %)domain|(% colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="width:478px" %)one or multiple dimensions 396 -|(% style="width:205px" %)How?|(% style="width:272px" %)unit of measure|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)development|(% colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="width:478px" %)mand. attribute or dimension 397 -|(% style="width:205px" %)How?|(% style="width:272px" %)unit multiplier|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)available|(% colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="width:478px" %)mandatory attribute 398 -|(% style="width:205px" %)How?|(% style="width:272px" %)decimals|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)available|(% colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="width:478px" %)mandatory attribute 399 -|(% style="width:205px" %)How?|(% style="width:272px" %)//adjustment//|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)development|(% style="width:290px" %)mand. att.|(% style="width:221px" %) not relevant 400 -|(% style="width:205px" %)When?|(% style="width:272px" %)time period|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)format|(% style="width:290px" %)dimension|(% style="width:221px" %)mand. att. 401 -|(% style="width:205px" %)When?|(% style="width:272px" %)time format|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)available|(% colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="width:478px" %)mandatory attribute 402 -|(% style="width:205px" %)When?|(% style="width:272px" %)time period – collection|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)development|(% style="width:290px" %)mand. att.|(% style="width:221px" %)cond. att. 403 -|(% style="width:205px" %)When?|(% style="width:272px" %)data update – last update|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)time stamp|(% colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="width:478px" %)mandatory attribute 404 -|(% style="width:205px" %)How often?|(% style="width:272px" %)//frequency//|(% style="width:178px" %)X|(% style="width:270px" %)available|(% style="width:290px" %)mand. att. or|(% style="width:221px" %)not relevant 405 -|(% style="width:205px" %)How much?|(% style="width:272px" %)observation value|(% style="width:178px" %)-|(% style="width:270px" %)numeric|(% colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="width:290px" %) 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 406 406 407 407 ~*~*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. 408 408 ... ... @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ 412 412 413 413 |**Question**|**Concept**|**COG**|**Code list**|**TS**|**CS**|**Scenario** 414 414 |Who?|compiling agency|X|development|((( 415 -conditional (sibling) 414 +conditional (sibling) 416 416 )))|conditional (obs. level)|data provider different from data compiler 417 417 |Who?|((( 418 418 confidentiality status – observation ... ... @@ -548,30 +548,24 @@ 548 548 (% class="wikigeneratedid" %) 549 549 Figure 12. Possible attribute attachment levels 550 550 551 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %) 552 -[[image:1768470860119-204.png]] 553 553 554 554 (% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure13.Codelistspecificationprocess" %) 555 555 Figure 13. Code list specification process 556 556 557 - (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)554 + 558 558 Figure 14 recaps the priorities given to different types of existing code lists when searching for candidates for reuse (step 4.3.2.1.). Code lists recommended by the SDMX COG (and maintained by the SDMX consortium) are ranked the highest. 559 559 560 -[[image:1768470878394-873.png]] 561 561 562 562 (% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure14.Priorityrankingofexistingcodelistsforreuse" %) 563 563 Figure 14. Priority ranking of existing code lists for reuse 564 564 565 - (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)561 + 566 566 Figure 15 summarizes the aspects to be considered in the evaluation of the suitability of existing code lists (step 4.3.2.2.). Figure 16 summarizes the scenarios of adapting existing code lists that do not fully meet the specified needs (step 4.3.2.3.2). For a detailed description of the cases of partial unsuitability see section 2.1. above. 567 567 568 -[[image:1768470896763-366.png]] 569 569 570 570 (% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure15.Aspectsofcodelistsuitability" %) 571 571 Figure 15. Aspects of code list suitability 572 572 573 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %) 574 -[[image:1768470911321-123.png]] 575 575 576 576 (% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HFigure16.Codelistmodificationscenarios" %) 577 577 Figure 16. Code list modification scenarios ... ... @@ -584,11 +584,8 @@ 584 584 585 585 Figure 17 provides an overview of all steps in the DSD design process as described in the previous subsections 1. to 3. Figure 18 compiles those steps into a checklist for DSD designers to help them make sure all aspects are considered. 586 586 587 -[[image:1768471052577-528.png]] 588 - 589 589 Figure 17. DSD design process 590 590 591 -[[image:1768470939545-136.png]] 592 592 593 593 Figure 18. Checklist for DSD design process 594 594 ... ... @@ -638,12 +638,10 @@ 638 638 639 639 == 9.2 Non-SDMX Documents == 640 640 641 -6th Edition of the IMF's Balance of Payments Manual (BPM6). Available online at [[http:~~/~~/www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2007/bopman6.htm>>https://http:www.imf.orgexternalpubsftbop2007bopman6.htm||target="_blank"]].631 +6th Edition of the IMF's Balance of Payments Manual (BPM6). Available online at http:~/~/www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2007/bopman6.htm. 642 642 643 -METIS: Generic Statistical Business Process Model (GSBPM). Available online at [[http:~~/~~/www1.unece.org/stat/platform/display/metis/The+Generic+Statistical+Business+Process+Model>>https://http:www1.unece.orgstatplatformdisplaymetisThe+Generic+Statistical+Business+Process+Model||target="_blank"]].633 +METIS: Generic Statistical Business Process Model (GSBPM). Available online at http:~/~/www1.unece.org/stat/platform/display/metis/The+Generic+Statistical+Business+Process+Model. UN's System of National Accounts Manual 2008 (SNA2008). Available online at http:~/~/unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna2008.asp. 644 644 645 -UN's System of National Accounts Manual 2008 (SNA2008). Available online at [[http:~~/~~/unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna2008.asp>>https://http:unstats.un.orgunsdnationalaccountsna2008.asp||target="_blank"]]. 646 - 647 647 ---- 648 648 649 649 {{putFootnotes/}}
- 1768470860119-204.png
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xwiki:XWiki.helena - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -37.9 KB - Content
- 1768470878394-873.png
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xwiki:XWiki.helena - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -49.7 KB - Content
- 1768470896763-366.png
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xwiki:XWiki.helena - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -29.9 KB - Content
- 1768470911321-123.png
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xwiki:XWiki.helena - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -49.2 KB - Content
- 1768470939545-136.png
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xwiki:XWiki.helena - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -143.4 KB - Content
- 1768471052577-528.png
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xwiki:XWiki.helena - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -97.4 KB - Content