You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
2.5 Design and specification of collection tools (Portugal)
Regarding the suggestion to insert text referring to the design and specification of collection tools, it was agreed that subprocess is 2.5 is not the right place where we would design collection tools.
2.6 Production systems and workflow design (Ecuador)
This comment appeared to be asking whether a separate workflow design should exist for each data source. It was agreed that such separate workflows for each data source would not be required by GSBPM, owing to the possibility to reuse processes, integrate different sources of data and avoid siloed production.
Geospatial in Intro to Design phase (Portugal)
Regarding the suggestion from Portugal to insert the text following into para 48 (the second of three which introduce the design phase):
through geospatial standards (or standards in the geospatial community/domain)
as well as the interoperability between both fields
It was discussed that geospatial aspects of design are just one of many to consider (other things might include classifications, etc.). Also, the first part of the sentence in that para already mentions (inter)national standards without saying they are statistical standards, so there is no need to make a separate reference to geospatial standards.
However, regarding the text about interoperability, a mention of this was made at the beginning of that same paragraph to motivate the use of standards. While it’s not desirable to go deeply into the various advantages of using standards within that paragraph (already touched upon in the introduction and annex of the GSBPM document), it was nevertheless decided to replace the text “to enhance comparability and usability” with “enhance interoperability, comparability, etc.”.
Geospatial in 2.4 (Portugal)
Regarding the second comment from Portugal about geospatial, after the text of subprocess 2.4 was examined, it was thought that the comment may have been based on the ambiguity of the sentence “It may include geospatial data and classifications”, in particular that the “It” refers to sources, and not to the subprocess itself, and so that sentence was changed to make it clearer without inserting the suggested text. However, an additional sentence was inserted to say that “Spatial analysis techniques can be used to ensure the spatial distribution of the units is appropriate”.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
2.5 Design and specification of collection tools (Portugal)
Regarding the suggestion to insert text referring to the design and specification of collection tools, it was agreed that subprocess is 2.5 is not the right place where we would design collection tools.
2.6 Production systems and workflow design (Ecuador)
This comment appeared to be asking whether a separate workflow design should exist for each data source. It was agreed that such separate workflows for each data source would not be required by GSBPM, owing to the possibility to reuse processes, integrate different sources of data and avoid siloed production.
Geospatial in Intro to Design phase (Portugal)
Regarding the suggestion from Portugal to insert the text following into para 48 (the second of three which introduce the design phase):
It was discussed that geospatial aspects of design are just one of many to consider (other things might include classifications, etc.). Also, the first part of the sentence in that para already mentions (inter)national standards without saying they are statistical standards, so there is no need to make a separate reference to geospatial standards.
However, regarding the text about interoperability, a mention of this was made at the beginning of that same paragraph to motivate the use of standards. While it’s not desirable to go deeply into the various advantages of using standards within that paragraph (already touched upon in the introduction and annex of the GSBPM document), it was nevertheless decided to replace the text “to enhance comparability and usability” with “enhance interoperability, comparability, etc.”.
Geospatial in 2.4 (Portugal)
Regarding the second comment from Portugal about geospatial, after the text of subprocess 2.4 was examined, it was thought that the comment may have been based on the ambiguity of the sentence “It may include geospatial data and classifications”, in particular that the “It” refers to sources, and not to the subprocess itself, and so that sentence was changed to make it clearer without inserting the suggested text. However, an additional sentence was inserted to say that “Spatial analysis techniques can be used to ensure the spatial distribution of the units is appropriate”.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions