1 / 19

CESSDA Question Databank

CESSDA Question Databank. Tender, results and future. Introduction. Data Archiving and Networked Services Institute of both KNAW and NWO Mission Departments: Archive and dissemination Infrastructure Software development. Outline. Background Question Bank Tender

gebhardt
Download Presentation

CESSDA Question Databank

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CESSDA Question Databank Tender, results and future Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  2. Introduction • Data Archiving and Networked Services • Institute of both KNAW and NWO • Mission • Departments: • Archive and dissemination • Infrastructure • Software development Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  3. Outline • Background • Question Bank Tender • Discussion of technical specifications • Conclusion • Approach Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  4. Background • Cross-national survey programmes introduce comparability and harmonization issues. • Supporting infrastructure: • Constructs, Classifications, Conversions Database (CCCDB or CHARMCATS) • Question Database (QDB) • Pre- and post harmonization Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  5. Tender • Specification of tender • Requirements, use cases • Need for CESSDA-wide architecture • Execution • Metadata Technology • Marratech Sessions • Involvement of architecture WP • Report and review Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  6. Report • General • QDB should not function stand alone • References to variables, questionnaire, etc. • DDI3 metadata model • Webservice architecture • DDI v1 and v2 in use by CESSDA archives • Discussion • Will tools be able to migrate to DDI v3? Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  7. Report • Purpose and Functionality • Link questions via concepts, variables • Link additional survey metadata / physical data • Query questions based on references • QDB needs to include references • Discussion • Either use DDI3 • Use generic model Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  8. Report • Architecture • Repositories povide content • Registry indexes content • 3CDB and QDB provide functionality • Increasing identification and communication • Discussion • Question bank vs. QDB? • Identification designed for DDI3 context Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  9. Report • Repository • Contains content from one or more archives • Contains one or more banks • Studies, variables, concepts, universes, questions, ... • Dedicated or on top of existing systems • Additional administration, logs, etc. • Discussion • Existing systems fall short (identification, version,...) • Quality essential for stability Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  10. Report • Registry • Banks register content • Minimal metadata requiredforsearching • Responsibleforsearching / locating, notforretrieval • Use SDMX approach • Discussion • Howmuch metadata is neededfor proper functioning? Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  11. Report • QDB • Function as repository for local questions and proxy for non-local questions • Stores comparison information • Discussion • Should QDB archive questions / comparison information • Who is responsible for QDB (LTP) Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  12. Report • Requirements and use cases • A ‘Gold Standard’ promotes the use of certain proven objects and increases comparability • Use registry for searching • Discussion • Assign to existing questions or define them centrally? • Use registry or QDB for searching questions? Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  13. Report • Metadata and technology overview • Many open source components • Database might require proprietary software • Discussion • Start with open source database. Good design allows replacement when needed. Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  14. Report • Implementation • Start prototype implementations to demonstrate functionality • Start improving legacy metadata • Use / extend SDMX registry • Discussion • Deadlock-situation: get tools to improve metadata, improve metadata to demonstrate functionality • How DDI3 is improved metadata from Nesstar without workflow, versioning, identification? DDI3-ready? Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  15. Alternative Solution • MT approach is similar / better than intuitive solution • DDI3 metadata approach is essential • Web service is more flexible than harvesting • MT approach is more distributed Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  16. Conclusion • DDI3 is an obvious choice, adopt it and improve it • It will change workflow, infrastructure and responsibility • How can archives justify, pay, risk and achieve this? • What is the role of CESSDA? Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  17. Approach Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  18. Approach • Phase 1: search, browse and access questions • Question text + response domain • Results in having some base material • Phase 2: add references • To/from concepts and questionnaires • Implement registry to facilitate search • Explore organiation,publishing issues Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

  19. Approach • Phase 3: Add QDB/3CDB • What functions do these provide • What metadata functions do these require • Etc. Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009

More Related