Inclusion of Statistical Support Program

[FranckCo]

Statistical Support Program was removed from version 1 as decided during 13 September 2021 task team meeting, due to ongoing discussions in the GSIM task team about it. Reintroducing it should be considered for version 2.

[FranckCo]

4th July meeting: revive this issue. @FlavioRizzolo Add or link diagram/text from GSIM revision team.

[InKyungChoi]

Just to report on the current status:

GSIM Statistical Support Activity is currently defined as:

• definition: activity that supports statistical production
• explanatory text: This type of activity program will include such functions as metadata management, data management, methodological research, and design functions. These programs correspond to the overarching processes in the GSBPM, and Corporate Support in GAMSO, as well as programs to create new or change existing Statistical Programs which are covered by GSBPM phase 1-3.

Following the way Statistical Program and Statistical Program are defined in the specification document, we can use:

• Statistical Support Activity: it refers to activities that support the production of statistics such as methodological research, quality management, management of registers, identification of user needs (GSBPM Phase 1).

[FlavioRizzolo]

I think this new definition introduces some complexities that need to be addressed in the ontology. How do we represent that some phases are now individuals of Statistical Support Activity? It seems to me making and individual an instance of two classes is not a good practice, so we'll probably need to split the Phase class into two.

Proposal: replace Phase class by Production Phase (GSBPM 4-7) and Support Phase (GSBPM 1-3); exact names to be determined. That will be aligned with the new definitions of GSIM Statistical Program and Statistical Support Activity.

[FlavioRizzolo]

Alternatively, we could just rename Phase to Production Phase, or a similar name, and use it only for GSBPM 4-7. Then we can make the other phases individuals of Overarching Activity.

[InKyungChoi]

I think this new definition introduces some complexities that need to be addressed in the ontology. How do we represent that some phases are now individuals of Statistical Support Activity? It seems to me making and individual an instance of two classes is not a good practice, so we'll probably need to split the Phase class into two.

Proposal: replace Phase class by Production Phase (GSBPM 4-7) and Support Phase (GSBPM 1-3); exact names to be determined. That will be aligned with the new definitions of GSIM Statistical Program and Statistical Support Activity.

That would actually be in line with the way GSBPM sees phases:

[FranckCo]

Background material for this discussion can be found in issue #4.

[FlavioRizzolo]

Summary of my proposal. Please review.

Now, Overarching Activity in COOS captures both GSIM Statistical Support Activity and Overarching Processes.

[JALinnerud]

GSBPM 1, 2, 3 and 8 are now reminding me of GAMSO Capability Development (Plan, Do, Check, Act) then put into Corporate Support.

[InKyungChoi]

I think GSBPM Phase 1-3, 8 should not be under "overarching activity". If we use the word "overarching" in a similar sense as GSBPM overarching process (activity that takes place throughout GSBPM phases). Phase 1-3 (less sure about Phase 8 though) is not exactly"overarching" because, for example, consulting user needs does not happen throughout the production process.

How about, in line with what GSBPM has,

• On-going work phase (too long?): GSBPM phase 4-7
• Change work phase: GSBPM phase 1-3... + 8
• Overarching activity: GSBPM OPs

[FlavioRizzolo]

I think GSBPM Phase 1-3, 8 should not be under "overarching activity". If we use the word "overarching" in a similar sense as GSBPM overarching process (activity that takes place throughout GSBPM phases). Phase 1-3 (less sure about Phase 8 though) is not exactly"overarching" because, for example, consulting user needs does not happen throughout the production process.

How about, in line with what GSBPM has,

• On-going work phase (too long?): GSBPM phase 4-7
• Change work phase: GSBPM phase 1-3... + 8
• Overarching activity: GSBPM OPs

Yes, I think that's the best way of avoiding confusion.

How about my first proposal above? Replace Phase class by Production Phase (GSBPM 4-7) and Support Phase (GSBPM 1-3+8). An alternative name could be something like Change Phase for GSBPM 1-3+8.