Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Publishing Statistical Data
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Expressing "part of" relationships between observations
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
BillRoberts  
View profile  
 More options Dec 30 2011, 8:51 am
From: BillRoberts <bill.robe...@planet.nl>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Dec 30 2011 8:51 am
Subject: Re: Expressing "part of" relationships between observations
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

While the use of skos:narrower seems very sensible, it is in itself a
strong enough statement of what I want to say.  Keith's suggestion
alongside the skos:narrower relationships might do the job.

Ideally I would like to assert the 'pie-chart-like' nature of the data
- that the subsets (England, Scotland, Wales, NI) do not intersect and
that the superset (UK) is the union of those non-intersecting subsets
(and hence the population of the UK should be the sum of populations
of the subsets)

Bill

On Dec 30, 1:02 pm, Jindøich Mynarz <mynarzjindr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Keith,

> the simple answer is to use broader skos:Concepts (from the code lists
> coding the Data Cube dimensions) for the aggregated observations.
> I.e., for your and Bill's combined example, it would be something
> like:

> <ukPopulation2009Observation> ex:geoArea <UK> .

> where ...

> <UK> skos:narrower <England>, <Scotland>, <Wales>, <NorthernIreland> .

> In this way, the measures are comparable through the code list
> (skos:ConceptScheme).

> Best,

> Jindrich

> 2011/12/30 Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexan...@gmail.com>:

> > The remaining question is how to tie the containment relationship of the
> > geographic areas to the relationship between the measure values (the total
> > population of the super area is, or should be, the sum of the population of
> > its parts ).

> > Something like this?

> > <ukPopulation2009Observation> ex:calculatedFrom
> > (<scotlandPopulation2009Observation> <englandPopulation2009Observation>
> > <northernIrelandPopulation2009Observation> <walesPopulation2009Observation>)
> > .

> > ex:calculatedFrom ex:observationMeasure ex:population .

> > ?

> > Is there a more idiomatic datacube way of expressing that?

> > 2011/12/30 Landong Zuo <landong....@googlemail.com>

> >> You might already have the hierarchy of geographical area if you
> >> follow the Ordnance Survey URI.

> >> Regards,

> >> Landong

> >> On Dec 27, 5:59 pm, Jindøich Mynarz <mynarzjindr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi Bill,

> >> > I would use hierarchical code lists to express this. Given that all
> >> > code lists in Data Cube are skos:ConceptSchemes, you can express
> >> > hierarchy with SKOS (e.g., skos:narrower, skos:broader). In your case,
> >> > you would have:

> >> > <UK> skos:narrower <England>, <Scotland>, <Wales>, <NorthernIreland> .

> >> > Best,

> >> > Jindrich

> >> > --
> >> > Jindrich Mynarz
> >> > @jindrichmynarz
> >> > <http://keg.vse.cz/resource/person/jindrich-mynarz>

> >> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, BillRoberts <bill.robe...@planet.nl>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > It often comes up in statistical data that you have some kind of
> >> > > 'overall' figure, which is then broken down into parts. To Supposing I
> >> > > have a set of population observations, expressed with the Data Cube
> >> > > vocabulary - something like (in pseudo-turtle)

> >> > > ex:obs1
> >> > >  sdmx:refArea <UK>;
> >> > >  sdmx:refPeriod "2011";
> >> > >  ex:population "60" .

> >> > > ex:obs2
> >> > >  sdmx:refArea <England>;
> >> > >  sdmx:refPeriod "2011";
> >> > >  ex:population "50" .

> >> > > ex:obs3
> >> > >  sdmx:refArea <Scotland>;
> >> > >  sdmx:refPeriod "2011";
> >> > >  ex:population "5" .

> >> > > ex:obs4
> >> > >  sdmx:refArea <Wales>;
> >> > >  sdmx:refPeriod "2011";
> >> > >  ex:population "3" .

> >> > > ex:obs5
> >> > >  sdmx:refArea <NorthernIreland>;
> >> > >  sdmx:refPeriod "2011";
> >> > >  ex:population "2" .

> >> > > What is the best way (in the context of the RDF/Data Cube/SDMX
> >> > > approach) to express that the values for the England/Scotland/Wales/
> >> > > Northern Ireland ought to add up to the value for the UK and
> >> > > constitute a more detailed breakdown of the overall UK figure?

> >> > > I might also have population figures for France, Germany, EU27,
> >> > > etc...so it's not as simple as just taking a qb:Slice where you fix
> >> > > the time period and the measure.

> >> > > Suggestions welcome!

> >> > > Bill


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google