Future of EDAMIS Webforms

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CMEF Requirements for the Monitoring tables as part of the Annual Report RD committee 24/10/2007.
Advertisements

Introduction to SDMX Seminar Eurostat/ECLAC 02 October 2012 August Götzfried Head of Unit, Eurostat B5 Management of statistical data and metadata.
Chapter 12 Systems Development Three common methods for MIS development: The systems development life cycle (SDLC) Prototyping End-user development Five.
Implementing ESS standards for reference metadata and quality reporting at Istat Work Session on Statistical Metadata Topic (i): Metadata standards and.
1 Reportnet for Noise: Feedback from member countries Colin Nugent Eionet National Reference Centres for Noise meeting Copenhagen October 2009.
SDMX IT Tools SDMX use in practice in NA
7b. SDMX practical use case: Census Hub
Eurostat Procedure for the revision of Mandate of Transmission Coordinators (TCOs) Item 15 DIME – ITDG SG meeting 18/11/2015 Jan Planovsky & Hubertus Cloodt.
Eurostat Sharing data validation services Item 5.1 of the agenda.
Working group “Maritime Transport Statistics” Luxembourg, April 2008 Data related issues Item 8 of the agenda.
Validation Architecture in the ESS CSPA Workshop, Geneva June 2016 Geneva June 2016 Eurostat, Vincent TRONET, Unit B1.
UNECE-CES Work session on Statistical Data Editing
TEPPC Review Task Force Meeting February 4-5, 2016
Lessons Learned, Future Plans and Conclusions
Global data structure definitions
Governance Assistant for Office365
Census Hub in practice Working Group "European Statistical Data Support" Luxembourg, 29 April 2015.
Data collection of 2012: Data transmission standards and tools
Proposal for new modules for inclusion in Regulation 691/2011
Validation Break-out sessions
Working Group on Population and Housing Censuses
Eurostat – Units E2, B5 Cristina BLANARU
Ivana Đurović National Bank of Serbia Luxembourg, June 2015
IT Directors Group October 2006
eDAMIS The single entry point
Task Force on Annual Financial Accounts
Data Transmission Tools & Services EDAMIS, SDMX, Validation
Challenges in implementing MB IPA statistical cooperation programmes
Follow-up actions to the June 2017 Standards Working Group meeting
Interoperability issues in the implementation of SIMS
Working Group on Population and Housing Censuses
Orestis Tsigkas ESTAT-F5
Statistical Information Technology
Giuliano Amerini Unit E6 (Transport)
LAMAS Working Group June 2017
Draft Methodology for impact analysis of ESS.VIP Projects
Validation Services - Implementation
Validation services developed in the ESS
ESS VIP ICT Project Task Force Meeting 5-6 March 2013.
Item of the Agenda Latest developments in eDAMIS and progress in the coverage of the Single Entry Point Vincent Tronet and John Allen Eurostat Unit.
Item 7.1 Implementation of the 2016 Adult Education Survey
Point 6. Eurostat plans for Time Use Survey data processing and dissemination Working Group on Time Use Surveys 10 April 2013.
CRIME - Data Transmission
Cooperation with Member States on internet: State of play
Item 7.3 (b) SDMX for UOE data collection
9. Practical use case 3: Pesticides Use Project
SDMX Implementation The National Accounts use case
European Census Hub: a cooperation model for dissemination of EU statistics Paper prepared by Ioannis Xirouchakis Presentation: Christine WIRTZ, Eurostat.
Conclusions of the June 2018 DTCG meeting
EDAMIS 4: communication and training
The migration to the new EDAMIS
The GLC Questionnaire for 2007
Modernisation of Validation in the ESS Collaboration with countries
TEN YEARS AFTER MEETING PROPOSALS
eDAMIS – Statistics of usage
The migration to the new EDAMIS
Eurostat Unit B3 – IT and standards for data and metadata exchange
ESS Vision and VALIDATION
EDIT data validation system Ewa Stacewicz EUROSTAT VALIDATION TEAM
Compliance for statistics
Validation Activities in the ESS What you will hear today…
Coverage of Single Entry Point (SEP)
Interoperability of metadata systems: Follow-up actions
GESMES and SDMX-ML - Practical issues
Validation at Insee.
Training & Communication news
Approach to SIMS implementation
Daniel Suranyi, Krassimir Ivanov
Presentation transcript:

Future of EDAMIS Webforms Item 3.2 Data Transmission Coordinators Group meeting 17-18 June 2019 Luca Gramaglia Eurostat, Unit B5

Situation last year… Request The EVUG members asked Eurostat to evaluate the continued need for Webforms, now that other transmission and conversion means are available. Response Webforms still present advantages over Excel: Data providers cannot change the layout of the Webforms Webforms make it possible to highlight cells that fail validation rules Webforms avoid some technical issues with Excel (e.g. floating point representation) For these reasons, there is currently no concrete plan to phase out Webforms. However, potential solutions to the problems mentioned above are being investigated.

Webforms: current usage All data used in this section covers the period April 1st 2018 – March 31st 2019

Webforms: what are they? Webforms are a data collection tool integrated in EDAMIS. Webforms allow data providers to manually input data in a tabular, Excel-like environment, while guaranteeing that the data arrives in Eurostat in an easily machine-readable format. Webforms also provide the possibility for domain managers to encode validation rules, which can be used by data providers to pre-validate their files prior to submission. Webforms were first introduced in the late 2000's. Over the years, efforts were made to align the Webforms to SDMX. Webforms currently output an SDMX-compatible file.

Webforms: why do they exist? The initial goal behind the development of Webforms was the phase-out the use of Excel to transmit data to Eurostat. The main disadvantages of Excel were the following: The flexibility of Excel made it difficult and resource-intensive to automate data loading and processing. Pre-validation functionalities could only be made available by using Excel formulas and macros. These were difficult to maintain and did not enjoy any corporate support. Excel is proprietary software. Data providers that used open-source alternatives (e.g. OpenOffice) found it difficult to provide data to Eurostat using Excel. Moreover, as a general principle, Eurostat should not force data providers to use proprietary software for data transmission.

Who uses Webforms - Eurostat Webforms are used today for 105 EDAMIS datasets. The overwhelming majority of these datasets are in Directorate E, with E1 in particular being a main user. Unit Number of Webform datasets Percentage of total Webform transmissions E1 62 86.5% E2 23 10.9% E3 16 2.2% F2 1 0.3%

Who uses Webforms – Data providers NSIs are responsible for 76% of Webform transmissions. This is in line with the Eurostat-wide average of 74%.

Webforms: How much are they used?

Webforms: did they succeed? Current usage of Webforms Current usage of Excel # of EDAMIS datasets 106 # of transmissions (last 12 months) 9995 (11.2%) Volume of transmissions 231 MB (0.1%) # of EDAMIS datasets ~180 # of transmissions (last 12 months) 18145 (20.4%) Volume of transmissions (last 12 months): 21555 MB (13.9%)

Webforms: did they succeed? Webforms were not successful in phasing out Excel, mostly due to certain limitations of Webforms: Size limitations: Webforms are only suitable for small datasets Modelling limitations: Webforms are only suitable for datasets containing a small number of orthogonal dimensions. They cannot handle datasets for which more complex data modelling is necessary. Confidentiality: Webforms cannot be used for the transmission of confidential data, as their architecture is not consistent with encryption. Moreover, Webforms can represent an obstacle to automation, as it is not possible to automate Webform transmissions

Webform trends As a result of these limitations, Excel has remained more popular than Webforms as a delivery format. Moreover, In part because of the limitations mentioned above, the general trend observed today is of a move away from Webforms: In the Pesticides domain, Webforms were phased out in favour of Excel because of confidentiality concerns. There has been no new domain using Webforms in the past several years. On the contrary, one domain completely abandoned Webforms (ENERGY – unit E5).

Alternatives to Webforms

Eurostat validation architecture Eurostat’s validation architecture now supports a wider variety of formats (SDMX-ML, SDMX-CSV, plain CSV, FLR, Excel)

SDMX-compatible Excel templates Due to the enduring popularity of Excel, Eurostat developed SDMX-compatible Excel templates. These templates address the main challenges posed by Excel (see slide 3) The templates offer a way to structure Excel files so that they can be automatically converted to a machine-readable format and processed. Thanks to Eurostat's new validation architecture, centralised corporate validation services can be used in conjunction with the templates for validation and pre-validation. Excel remains proprietary software, but the templates can be opened, edited and saved using non-proprietary tools. SDMX-compatible Excel templates can represent an alternative to Webforms!

SDMX-compatible Excel vs Webforms: advantages Cheap: reuses existing solution, no new development needed, no need for training on a specific tool. Confidentiality: The use of the SDMX-compatible Excel templates allows for encryption during transmission. All validation functionalities can be provided with encrypted data as well. Flexibility: No limitations in terms of size. Automation: SDMX-compatible templates would be one of the options available to data providers. Data providers could easily opt for SDMX-ML or (SDMX-)CSV if they wish to automate the process.

SDMX-compatible Excel vs Webforms: drawbacks Less user-friendly validation: Structural validation is not built-in: users can make mistakes if they modify the templates. Validation reports not currently as user-friendly than the ones with Webforms (and for the time being slower) Pre-filling: More difficult to replicate the pre-filling functionalities currently available with Webforms. Visibility: Previously transmitted data not visible in EDAMIS.

Next steps

Testing The alternative scenario is being tested in the ANI domain for three datasets: ANI_GIPCAT_S ANI_HATACTI_M ANI_SLAUGHT_M Based on the outcomes of these tests, a final decision on the future of Webforms in EDAMIS 4 will be taken TCOs are invited to participate in the tests (or invite their colleagues to participate). For the time being (and until a final approach is decided upon, Webforms are only available in EDAMIS3)

Questions for discussion Do TCOs have any comments on the alternative scenario proposed? Do TCOs have any preference between the two scenarios? Are there any advantages / disadvantages not mentioned? How do TCOs judge the balance between the advantages of the alternative scenario (e.g. possibility of automation and encryption) compared to the disadvantages (e.g. user-friendliness) Any suggestions on the testing?

Thank you for your attention!