Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

Attendees



Agenda

1) Use Case reminder

2) Where we are on our road map. 

3) Open Action Items

4) JIRA Issues Review - https://jira.edmcouncil.org/projects/IND/issues/IND-17?filter=allopenissues

5) Todays content discussion.

SMIF OWL-UML

SKOS

RDF/S

6) For next week.

Proceedings:

Today's discussion focused on the results of FND-298 and how we might need to revise IND to properly reflect (1) how certain scoped measures (economic indicators) relate to quantity values or subsets thereof, and (2) whether or not we can fully represent the various aspects of the current unemployment situation.  

In Dan's current model, the relationship between a scoped measure and datum involves measurement.  In our model, we refer to the datum as a quantity value, and those that are specific to economic indicators, such as numeric index value and ratio value need to point to the thing that they are a measurement of.  FND-298 added that for numeric index value but ratio value also needs that restriction, and there may be others.

A measurement/observation is either equivalent to or a subclass of a 'dated collection constituent' in our model - this is a gap that we need to address.  Then, a numeric index value should be a subclass of measurement (or observation), and the redundant restriction with respect to the date of the observation eliminated from numeric index value.  We likely need a subclass of ratio value that is also a subclass of measurement/observation to cover other cases.

We also discussed hooking our 'ratings' model into this structure - they are currently disconnected.

In the second half of the call, we looked at the unemployment rate and whether or not we can actually represent what's happening in the current situation.  Dan pointed us to the fact that BLS actually measures unemployment using 6 different measures, U-1 through U-6, which we should try to represent.  Some of these include the notions of discouraged workers and marginally attached workers, which we have not yet defined.  They should be subclasses of population not in labor force, likely.  There are other issues with the latest numbers in terms of how they describe people that are employed but absent from work, vs. unemployed on temporary layoff.  5 million people were classifed as employed but absent from work when the April numbers were published, which may or may not coincide with the unemployed on temporary layoff.  The difference between the two is somewhat fuzzy, and depending on how you count, if those people are not currently being paid, then the unemployment rate could be significantly higher than reported.  How people classify themselves when the survey was taken is one of the issues.  See https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm for the U-1 thru U-6 distinctions, which we should account for in our US EI extension, using individuals that would allow us to actually represent individuals corresponding to the published details.   We will continue looking at this next week.

Decisions:

Action items

  •