Skip to Content
Last modified by Helena on 2025/09/10 11:19
From version 7.6
edited by Helena
on 2025/05/14 13:37
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 10.2
edited by Helena
on 2025/05/14 14:41
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -1 Overview
1 +SDMX STANDARDS
Parent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Methodology.WebHome
Content
... ... @@ -88,8 +88,6 @@
88 88  
89 89  == //2.2 Transmission Formats// ==
90 90  
91 -:
92 -
93 93  (((
94 94  (% style="width:952.039px" %)
95 95  |(% style="width:130px" %)**SDMX-ML**|(% style="width:820px" %)(((
... ... @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
121 121  * Deprecation of the Agency, ID, Version option for referencing of structures in messages
122 122  )))
123 123  |(% style="width:130px" %)**SDMX-EDI**|(% style="width:820px" %)The EDI format for both structures and data has been deprecated.
124 -|(% style="width:130px" %)**SDMX-CSV**|(% style="width:820px" %)The CSV data and reference metadata messages are not backwardly compatible with those under version 2.1 due to changes to the structure of the messages needed to support new features such as the improved REST API data queries.**     **
122 +|(% style="width:130px" %)**SDMX-CSV**|(% style="width:820px" %)The CSV data and reference metadata messages are not backwardly compatible with those under version 2.1 due to changes to the structure of the messages needed to support new features such as the improved REST API data queries.
125 125  )))
126 126  
127 127  == //2.3 Information Model// ==
... ... @@ -153,10 +153,7 @@
153 153  
154 154  //Conversion guidance for implementors//
155 155  
156 -A version 2.1 Metadata Structure Definition can be converted to the version 3.0 model under some circumstances, but target information is either lost or has to be translated into a metadataflow. Further, conversion of a Data Structure Definition for collecting reference metadata against a dataset would need to make changes to the dataset’s Data Structure Definition. As the Data Structure Definition may not actually be specified, judgement would need to be taken, perhaps determining the most likely candidate by examining which
157 -)))
158 -|(% style="width:132px" %) |(% style="width:819px" %)(((
159 -already have metadata reported against their datasets. A 2.1 metadata report could be converted to a version 3.0 Metadataset if it is attached to a structure, but requires a Metadata Provision Agreement which would need to be created if not already in existence.
154 +A version 2.1 Metadata Structure Definition can be converted to the version 3.0 model under some circumstances, but target information is either lost or has to be translated into a metadataflow. Further, conversion of a Data Structure Definition for collecting reference metadata against a dataset would need to make changes to the dataset’s Data Structure Definition. As the Data Structure Definition may not actually be specified, judgement would need to be taken, perhaps determining the most likely candidate by examining which already have metadata reported against their datasets. A 2.1 metadata report could be converted to a version 3.0 Metadataset if it is attached to a structure, but requires a Metadata Provision Agreement which would need to be created if not already in existence.
160 160  
161 161  Conversion from the version 3.0 model to version 2.1 cannot be performed reliably. The process would need target information to be derived from analysis of the Metadataflows and Metadata Provision Agreements. Depending on the complexity it may not be possible to express that information in a version 2.1 Data Structure Definition.
162 162  )))
... ... @@ -220,7 +220,8 @@
220 220  Removed Maintainable Artefacts
221 221  
222 222  * Structure Set – replaced by Structure Map and the four item scheme maps
223 -* Hierarchical Codelist – replaced by Hierarchy and Hierarchy Association • Constraint – replaced by Data Constraint and Metadata Constraint
218 +* Hierarchical Codelist – replaced by Hierarchy and Hierarchy Association
219 +* Constraint – replaced by Data Constraint and Metadata Constraint
224 224  
225 225  Changed Maintainable Artefacts
226 226  
... ... @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@
234 234  
235 235  * GeospatialInformation – a string type where the value is an expression defining a set of geographical features using a purpose-designed syntax
236 236  
237 -== //3.3 Areas Unchanged from Version 2.1// ==
233 +== 3.3 Areas Unchanged from Version 2.1 ==
238 238  
239 239  The following areas of the information model are unchanged from version 2.1:
240 240  
... ... @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@
247 247  * Reporting taxonomy
248 248  * Process
249 249  
250 -== //3.4 Reference Metadata// ==
246 +== 3.4 Reference Metadata ==
251 251  
252 252  Reference metadata has been substantially re-designed for version 3.0 to simplify the model and better support practical use cases.
253 253  
... ... @@ -276,83 +276,45 @@
276 276  * SOURCE_AGENCY – a multi-value data attribute
277 277  
278 278  <Obs xsi:type="dsd:ObsType" OBS_VALUE="112" OBS_STAUS=”A” TIME_PERIOD="2010-09">
279 -
280 280  <!—- complex multi-value and multi-lingual data attributes ~-~->
281 -
282 282  <Comp id="TITLE" xsi:type="ns1:TITLE_ATTRIBUTE">
283 -
284 284  <Value>
285 -
286 286  <common:Text xml:lang="en">Some English Text</common:Text>
287 -
288 288  <common:Text xml:lang="fr">Quelques textes en anglais</common:Text>
289 -
290 290  </Value>
291 -
292 292  </Comp>
293 293  
294 294  <Comp id="SOURCE_AGENCY" xsi:type="ns1:SOURCE_AGENCY_ATTRIBUTE">
295 -
296 296  <Value>4F0</Value>
297 -
298 298  <Value>4D0</Value>
299 -
300 300  <Value>CZ2</Value>
301 -
302 302  </Comp>
303 -
304 304  <!—- metadata attributes are reported like in metadata messages ~-~->
305 -
306 306  <Metadata>
307 -
308 308  <Attribute id="COLLECTION">
309 -
310 310  <Attribute id="METHOD">
311 -
312 312  <Text lang="en">AAA</Text>
313 -
314 314  </Attribute>
315 -
316 316  </Attribute>
317 -
318 318  <Attribute id="CONTACT">
319 -
320 320  <Value>CONTACT 1</Value>
321 -
322 322  <Attribute id="NAME">
323 -
324 324  <Value>Contact 1 Name 1</Value>
325 -
326 326  </Attribute>
327 -
328 328  <Attribute id="NAME">
329 -
330 330  <Value>Contact 1 Name 2</Value>
331 -
332 332  </Attribute>
333 -
334 334  </Attribute>
335 -
336 336  <Attribute id="CONTACT">
337 -
338 338  <Value>CONTACT 2</Value>
339 -
340 340  <Attribute id="NAME">
341 -
342 342  <Value>Contact 2 Name 1</Value>
343 -
344 344  </Attribute>
345 -
346 346  <Attribute id="NAME">
347 -
348 348  <Value>Contact 2 Name 2</Value>
349 -
350 350  </Attribute>
351 -
352 352  </Attribute>
353 -
354 354  </Metadata>
355 -
356 356  </Obs>
357 357  
358 358  === New - Metadata Provision Agreement ===
... ... @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@
367 367  
368 368  A Metadataset now has mandatory identification information, (owner id, id, version) enabling metadata providers to uniquely identify their reports for create, update or delete maintenance operations.
369 369  
370 -== //3.5 Microdata Exchange// ==
328 +== 3.5 Microdata Exchange ==
371 371  
372 372  Several changes have been made the Data Structure Definition to support microdata use cases in addition to aggregated time series.
373 373  
... ... @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@
425 425  
426 426  That allows ValueItems (the equivalent to Code) to contain symbols like ‘¥’ and ‘€’, but 208 also means they are not identifiable.
427 427  
428 -== //3.6 Geospatial Data Exchange// ==
386 +== 3.6 Geospatial Data Exchange ==
429 429  
430 430  The version 3.0 model has been extended to provide explicit support for geospatial data.
431 431  
... ... @@ -440,7 +440,7 @@
440 440  * GeographicCodelist – each item includes an element to represent a specific Geo Feature Set which is described using the same expression syntax as for GeospatialInformation type.
441 441  * GeoGridCodelist – A code list defining a geographical grid composed of cells representing regular squared portions of the Earth. Each item references a cell within the grid.
442 442  
443 -=== //3.7 Structure Mapping// ===
401 +=== 3.7 Structure Mapping ===
444 444  
445 445  The Structure Set in version 2.1 is a container for many mapping structures including Data Structure Map, Codelist Map and Concept Map. For version 3.0 the Structure Set artefact has been deprecated and replaced with a number of new maintainables giving better flexibility and reusability, specifically: Structure Map, Concept Scheme Map, Representation Map, Reporting Taxonomy Map, Category Scheme Map and Organisation Scheme Map.
446 446  
... ... @@ -472,7 +472,7 @@
472 472  
473 473  Item maps may further define the period for which the mapping is valid, meaning the mapping rule will only be applied if the row of information being mapped is within the period.
474 474  
475 -=== //3.8 Constraints// ===
433 +=== 3.8 Constraints ===
476 476  
477 477  Constraints in version 3.0 are modelled using two separate artefacts which replace the version 2.1 content constraint:
478 478  
... ... @@ -487,17 +487,17 @@
487 487  
488 488  Attachment constraints have been deprecated due to a lack of use cases.
489 489  
490 -=== //3.9 Code List Extension// ===
448 +=== 3.9 Code List Extension ===
491 491  
492 492  In addition to the two new specialised geospatial forms, the option has been added to define a code list as an extension of, or by inheriting codes from, other lists. An optional prefix can be added to inherited codes to disambiguate duplicates.
493 493  
494 494  This feature allows new code lists to be easily derived from existing lists without the need to make and manually maintain copies. When querying for extended code list structures using the REST API, the option has been added to retrieve either the definition or the materialised list. Traditional literal lists of codes continue to be supported.
495 495  
496 -=== //3.10 Discriminated Union of Code Lists// ===
454 +=== 3.10 Discriminated Union of Code Lists ===
497 497  
498 498  Combining code list extension with wildcarded constraints solves the discriminated union of code lists problem where a classification or breakdown has multiple “variants” which are all valid but mutually exclusive. A common example is economic activity where several alternative classification schemes are in use including ISIC revisions 1 to 4 and NACE as used in the European Community.
499 499  
500 -=== //3.11 Code Hierarchies// ===
458 +=== 3.11 Code Hierarchies ===
501 501  
502 502  Code hierarchies allow the definition of complex hierarchies of codes from potentially multiple lists for data discovery purposes. Hierarchical Codelist has been deprecated and replaced by two new artefacts: Hierarchy – the actual hierarchy of codes, and Hierarchy Association links hierarchies directly to any other identifiable object, a capability missing 312 from the version 2.1 model. Further, the linkage can be within a particular context, for instance linking a hierarchy to a dimension within the context of a specific Dataflow (dimension REF_AREA in the context of the ECB:EXR Dataflow).
503 503  
SUZ.Methodology.Code.MethodologyClass[0]