CESSDA Question Databank
description
Transcript of CESSDA Question Databank
CESSDA Question Databank
Tender, results and future
Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009
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
Outline
• Background• Question Bank Tender• Discussion of technical specifications• Conclusion• Approach
Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009
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
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
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
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
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
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
Report
• Registry– Banks register content– Minimal metadata required for searching– Responsible for searching / locating, not for
retrieval– Use SDMX approach
• Discussion– How much metadata is needed for proper
functioning?
Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009
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
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
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
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
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
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
Approach
Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009
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
Approach
• Phase 3: Add QDB/3CDB– What functions do these provide– What metadata functions do these require
• Etc.
Maarten Hoogerwerf, CESSDA expert seminar 2009