1. An Archive’s Perspective to DDI3 Mari Kleemola Information Services Manager Finnish Social Science Data Archive CESSDA Expert Seminar Ljubljana, 9.11.2009

2. My Starting Points Need to evaluate DDI3 for FSD’s purposes –plans to change our metadata system –need to produce various kinds of metadata DDI2 for long-term preservation (probably) DDI3 for Cessda (but no decisions made yet) ? for KDK (The National Digital Library project) … CESSDA PPP WP8 task 8.2.2

3. Things to look at… Preservation Multilinguality Groups Reusables, referencing Comparison FSD’s current practises/processes

4. Test case: ISSP 2006 Finnish data FSD the (primary) financier of data collection and involved in instrument translation etc. Collected by Statistics Finland Two questionnaires: fi and sv, and documentation in Finnish and in English A single study that belongs to several groups/series

5. ISSP 2006 multinational file ISSP multinational series FSD2248 ISSP FIN 2006 Additional questions Q. in Finnish Q. in Swedish FSD2410 FSD2330 FSD2133 FSD2039 Finnish ISSP studies ISSP SWE 2006 ISSP GER 2006

6. Subset: variables documented Variables/Questions (see PPP document DR 8.2.2 Evaluation of DDI 3.0) Archive and ID variables - Technical variables –FSD specific Substantial variables - types –Simple question: Variable V4 : Q1: Obey laws without exception –Question with items (little battery): V5 Q2a: Public protest meetings V6 Q2b: Protest demonstrations V7 Q2c: National anti-government strike ISSP demographics and interview char. - types –SEX: R: Sex Country specific Question / Variables –Ctry. specific: degree –Country specific education: Finland In addition the following (for FSD’s test purposes): –(K2) Year of birth (integer) - the ISSP variable AGE is calculated from this variable –(K20) WRKSUP : R: Supervises others at work (a filter variable) –(K21) Is R responsible for… (a battery with three subitems and a different universe due to the filter K20, not in the basic ISSP 2006 questionnaire) –(K22) WRKTYPE : R: Workg f priv.,pub sector, selfempl. Total: 18 variables

7. Tools I tried… DeXtris CESSDA Core DDI 3 Editor-Lite All gave valuable insight to DDI3… … but decided to start from scratch – with the help of Oxygen, Dagstuhl2008 materials, DDI Alliance website (Best Practices, ”table”, Cessda core,…), DDI3 Help Center, SPSSOMS12toDDI30, PPP WP8 paper, and our existing DDI2.1 file

8. Main problems Almost zero knowledge of XML schemas Lack of time Lack of supporting resources (ie. technical staff) The complexity of DDI3

9. Working with ”Simple questionnaire example”

10. Results of Exercise DDI3.0 XML file –It’s valid, it’s got 3771 lines, but what to do with it? Managed to include all our DDI2.1 metadata Need tools to produce DDI3 metadata DDI3 is very flexible, so think carefully –what is reusable (create resource packages) –what can be inherited (use groups) Note: the way your’e going to use the metadata affects the way you group Probably best to use DDI2.1-type documentation for preservation FSD need DDI3 functionalities, but it probably won’t pay off to DDI3 all our studies More questions than answers (many answered at Dagstuhl)

11. To Do To research more carefully –Grouping –Inheritance –Comparison module –Language issues Input from FSD technical staff needed Plan FSD actions to move from DDI2 to DDI3 European co-operation (CESSDA)

12. Thank you!