1. The Data Documentation Initiative: more discussion Chuck Humphrey University of Alberta Atlantic DLI Workshop 2005, Acadia University

2. 2 Outline Two metadata challenges The evolution of DDI The story of the RDC / DDI project

3. 3 Metadata Challenge #1 The correspondence between metadata and the tools that make use of it tends to be one-to-one. MARCOPAC SPSS syntax fileSPSS PDF fileAcrobat SAS commands SAS

4. 4 Metadata Challenge #1 And we have to create and re-create metadata for each application. MARCOPAC SPSS syntax fileSPSS PDF fileAcrobat SAS commands SAS

5. 5 Metadata Models for Data Here are some examples of historical metadata models for social science data. Notice that the characteristics of the metadata were bound by the tools of the day.

6. 6

7. 7

11. 11 Metadata Challenge #2 Our application tools have tended to constrain our metadata. Direction of control Desired service title search Choose a tool card catalog Tool defines the metadata format 3x5 card We create metadata to fit a format Small. (e.g., 3 subjects headings max.)

12. 12 Metadata Challenge #2 Consider how the length of variable labels for various statistical software has constrained our metadata about brief variable descriptions. Statistical PackageMax. Length of Var. Labels SPSS 7.5 120 SPSS 12 255 SAS 6.12 40 SAS 8.0 256 STATA 6.0 80

13. 13 Metadata Challenge #2 The dilemma created by limiting our metadata to current tools is that when new tools arise or new services are sought that can make use of richer metadata, we will not have created it and must face re-creating the metadata.

14. 14 Lessons from These Challenges Metadata should be created to go beyond simple one-to-one use and should be reusable for more than one purpose. Metadata should be created to describe data, not to meet the needs of one system, one service.

15. Blaise SAS IMDB PDF Word Paper DDI IMDB Nesstar Oracle Library OPAC Stat Software Google PDF, print html RSS DDI 3, 4... Proposal Sample design Questionnaire Pre-test Revisions Collection Processing Dissemination Function Tools Metadata Uses Applying These Lessons

16. 16 DDI Versions 1 & 2 1.0 Document Description 2.0 Study Description 3.0 Data Files Description 4.0 Variable Description 5.0 Other Study-related Materials The first two versions of DDI were modeled after the traditional ‘codebook’ made up of a user’s guide, data dictionary and record layout.

17. 17 DDI Version 3 (Draft) The draft for Version 3 is based on a process model and attempts to describe the stages within data creation using a life cycle perspective. 1. Start up 2. Planning 3. Execution 4. Close Out

18. DDI Versions 3 (Draft)

19. 19 DDI Versions 3 (Draft)

20. 20 Project Partnerships RDC Network RDC’s in the pilot include McMaster, Prairie and Alberta RDC Central has a Nesstar Licence DLI DLI Central shares the Nesstar License and is working on converting PUMF’s to DDI DLI EAC approved joining the DDI Alliance

21. 21 Project Partnerships General Social Survey Permission to use Cycle 17 in the pilot Provided a contact to assist with the data documentation Standards Division Interested in a pilot that would expose the issues of using DDI to document data

22. 22 Project Operation No formal budget at this point. All contributions to the project are in kind. Irene Wong is conducting the evaluation and creation of DDI documentation in the Alberta RDC. Sharon Neary, associated with the Prairie RDC, is coordinating training for end-users.

23. 23 Project Operation Byron Spencer is coordinating an evaluation of the Nesstar application of DDI in the McMaster RDC with end-users. We need for data discovery tools in DLI and the RDCs.

24. 24 Project Status The DDI compliant documentation for the GSS Cycle 17 master file has been completed and is now being tested as McMaster’s RDC. Irene is completing a report describing the process of creating the DDI version of the documentation and an assessment of DDI strengths and weaknesses.

25. 25 Metadata Life-Cycle Research One outcome of this project will be to comment on the amount of metadata produced over the life cycle of a survey and to identify the existing tools in which this metadata had been created and stored.