Meeting notes - October 3rd, 2023

[Chris-ECE]

Participants: Inkyung Choi, Christopher Jones, Nadia Mignolli, Joni Karanka, Gabriel Gamez, Mahmoud Jlassi, Jose Lujan.

Inkyung presenting the three action points from the previous meeting:

1. On the origin and meaning of accessibility measures in subprocess 6.1 of GSBPM, InKyung explained that it was not related to disability, but to geospatial accessibility (from GEOSTAT 2), such as travel distance and time. She asked the team whether they wanted to keep or remove this term.

2. On the suggested text from Georgia on how to explain machine learning to users in subprocess 6.1.
   • Action: She showed the proposal that Georgia made, which she personally liked, and asked the team to review it.

3. The third one was to see if anything should be mentioned in 5.1, arising from Geo-GSBPM.
   • Within the Geo-GSBPM group there had also been a debate about whether geocoding in its own right could be considered to be a form of data integration (without necessarily using geo-referenced data as the means with which separate datasets could be linked).
   • In the end, they decided to reserve the term for the linking of datasets that are of primary interest for statistical production, and this resulted in geo-coding being considered to be within a standardization or coding activity.
   • Gabriel mentioned that in discussion with his GGIM colleagues, they identified 3 stages in production where geospatial data is important:
   -- In data collection, including image data
   -- Geo-coding, to integrate disparate data sources based on geographical location.
   -- Visualization (or interpretation), using maps
   • Further suggestions on what could be added from Geo-GSBPM are welcome, if others in the group have suggestions.

InKyung also raised the possibility of renaming the “Collect” phase to “Acquire”

• Several countries asked for such a change:
-- New Zealand suggested acquire/source)
-- Sweden suggested data capture)
-- United Kingdom suggested acquire
-- Hungary suggested an unspecified change.
• “Ingest” is too specific, for when data flows into the organization, and therefore may exclude traditional survey data collection.
• Gather and fetch were suggested, but discarded.
• “Acquire” may sound somewhat financial, as if monetary payment has been made (although this word does not in fact imply that is the case). The group ultimately decided to adopt the name “Acquire” for phase 4.

Continuing to consider issues raised for the Process phase:

• Regarding possible overlap between sub-process 5.3 (review and validate) and sub-process 5.4 (edit and impute),
-- It was noted that both survey data and admin data or even big data may require correction of incorrect values or missing data. It was decided not to merge 5.3 and 5.4 as they can happen simultaneously, and nor to focus 5.3 solely on microdata.
-- It was also suggested to avoid the word “review” in the subprocess name, as it has a specific meaning in the context of GSDEM. It was suggested instead to name it “check and validate”, or perhaps to rename phases respectively to “Detect” and “Treat”.
-- Action: To ask Georgia about “treat” as it has a meaning within GSDEM.
• Boundary with collect phase (France)
-- Action: For surveys when checks are carried out during collection (validation-on-entry), InKyung will make a proposal under 4.3 for checking at the logical level (rather than the analytical level).
-- Action: Regarding the population of interest, we need to check this with Florian.
• Boundary with analysis phase (France)
-- Already done during discussions about the Analyse phase.
• 5.7. Calculate aggregates
-- Action: For the first bullet, we need to check what is meant by the difference between geographical and area classifications.