Meeting notes - June 20th, 2023

[Chris-ECE]

Present : Antti Santaharju, Cory Chobanik, Claudia Brunini, Elodie Kranklader, florian.vucko, Helda Mitre, Kevin McCormack,

Finalising the Disseminate phase
Sub-process 7.5. Manage user support

• Agreed to rename this subprocess to “Provide user support”.

Analyse phase
General comments

• When microdata is the output, there are controls in 5.3 and 6.2, so it’s not clear which tasks are performed in each. – It was suggested to include a sentence in 5.7 that checking of aggregates can be a means of validating microdata
• It was agreed not to add a subprocess for preparing time series data.
• It was agreed to add a point to 6.1 saying that the product can be microdata
• Regarding non-traditional visualized outputs, it was decided that no further action is needed, as 7.2 already mentions the many forms that the product can take (graphics, maps, microdata, etc)
• Regarding inclusion of exploratory data analysis, it was suggested to include mention of this within validation, for example within 6.3.

6.1

• The comment about precision was already addressesd by the decision to add mention of microdata at the start of phase 6.

6.2

• It was decided not to rename this to macrovalidation, especially as the output might be microdata.

_6.2 & 6.3 (Explaining ML-based results)_

• It was suggested to add a sentence in either 6.3 or 6.1 about explaining methodology (e.g. of ML).

Next meeting
11th July

[InKyungChoi]

Regarding "It was suggested to include a sentence in 5.7 that checking of aggregates can be a means of validating microdata" - I was trying to see how to act on this. Now I think it would be better to put this in 6.2 (Validate outputs) rather than 5.7 (Calculate aggregates). I assume we want to calculate the aggregates to validate the microdata - so the main activity is validation, and we are calculating aggregates for the purpose of validation. Under 6.2 (Validate outputs), we also have "performing macro editing" as an example of validation. @flo7894 - would this be okay?