UNECE METIS 2008 Pre-work session survey of participants

About the questionnaire Aim to collect information on existing practices and issues  Developed by METIS Steering Group based on 2007 questionnaire  Sent to METIS participants & mailing list  Responses from 35 statistical offices (~80% of participants at METIS 2008)

Metadata strategy  Most have either a corporate metadata strategy or independent systems  20% have both

Phase of implementation  Provide an overall picture  Enable countries/organizations to identify others at the same phase

Metadata systems are covering each phase

Standards: Current use, compared to 2007 Currently in useChange since 2007 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) or UN/EDIFACT 34%  23% Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) 11%  6% Statistical Data and Metadata Exchange (SDMX) ISO %  1%

Standards: Current use, compared to 2007 Currently in use% change since 2007 GIS Metadata Standard ISO %  3% Common Warehouse Metamodel (CWM) 3%  3% Metadata Registry Standard ISO/IEC %  5% Research Description Framework (RDF) or Web Ontology Language (OWL) 0%  6% Dublin Core 17%  11% Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) 11%  11%

Standards being considered, compared to 2007 Considering% change since 2007 Dublin Core 14%  9% Statistical Data and Metadata Exchange (SDMX) ISO %  7% Research Description Framework (RDF) or Web Ontology Language (OWL) 11%0%

Standards being considered, compared to 2007 Considering% change since 2007 Common Warehouse Metamodel (CWM) 14%  2% Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) or UN/EDIFACT 0%  6% Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) 31%  7% GIS Metadata Standard ISO %  13% Metadata Registry Standard ISO/IEC %  24% Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) 20%  24%

Main challenges 1.Lack of resources (77%) 2.Getting subject-matter statisticians support / buy-in (74%) 3.Implementing standards (69%) 4.Employing and retaining people with the right IT skills (69%)

Challenges Change compared to 2007 survey Getting top management support/buy-in  19% Metadata quality  17% Implementing standards  15% Adopting or developing an end-to-end process model  11% Employing and retaining people with the right IT skills  10% Getting subject-matter statisticians support/buy-in  5%

Metadata categories  Structural  Definitional  Methodological  Quality  Referential….  This issue will be discussed further as part of Bo Sundgren’s presentation (WP.7)

How useful is the Common Metadata Framework?  47% - extremely or very useful  35% - useful  18 % - partly or not useful  Encourage feedback  Discussions, future work and evaluation

Discussion 1.What is needed to help address the challenges? 2.How can the CMF be more useful? 3.Have we learnt something of value from this information? 4.Should we continue to gather it in the future? 5.Other comments or suggestions

UNECE 15 Joint UNECE/Eurostat/OECD METIS work session on statistical metadata, Luxembourg, 9 to 11 April 2008 Thank you