Hello,
I know that EpiData has the ability to output data in SPSS format (a TXT file and an SPS file which can be run to create a SAV file) - is it possible to reverse this process and either use a SAV file or a SPS/TXT combination to create REC and CHK files (and ideally even the QES file to go with them)?
I'm also interested if I could generate REC/CHK files from other file formats, such as Triple-S (and output to this too) - what options are there currently for doing this. If nothing, are any being worked on or considered for implementation in future versions? I would be interested in helping with developing these things if that is possible or would help also.
Thanks, Charity
Hmm... I may have just found a round-about way of doing this for SPSS - as usual I only find a solution after asking about it!
I just realised that I can save my SPSS file as a STATA file (I was looking for an SPSS export capability when all I needed was "Save As"), and then import the STATA file into EpiData. This doesn't give me a QES file (I think generating a QES file from a REC file is something currently being worked on?) but does give me a CHK file with value labels and a REC file with variable labels and data.
Only one small problem - the values which were integers seem to now have 4 decimal places, which without a QES file to revise from I don't think I can correct? It also means that the format does not match the value labels (integers) which causes errors. Perhaps I am importing into the wrong version of STATA... Still, a big step from where I was!
Thanks, Charity
On 1/10/07, Charity wrote:
Hello,
I know that EpiData has the ability to output data in SPSS format (a TXT file and an SPS file which can be run to create a SAV file) - is it possible to reverse this process and either use a SAV file or a SPS/TXT combination to create REC and CHK files (and ideally even the QES file to go with them)?
I'm also interested if I could generate REC/CHK files from other file formats, such as Triple-S (and output to this too) - what options are there currently for doing this. If nothing, are any being worked on or considered for implementation in future versions? I would be interested in helping with developing these things if that is possible or would help also.
Thanks, Charity
It is possible to post generate a QES file from a REC: 'TOOLS' / 'QES file from REC file' Gilles ______________________________________________ Gilles DELMAS Institut de Veille Sanitaire Dept. Maladies Infectieuses, Unité infections entériques, alimentaires et zoonoses 12 rue du Val d'Osne 94415 Saint-Maurice cedex - France + 33 1 41 79 67 27 g.delmas@invs.sante.fr ______________________________________________
-----Message d'origine----- De : epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca [mailto:epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca] Envoyé : mercredi 10 janvier 2007 02:00 À : Epidata List Objet : [EpiData-list] Re: Importing other file formats (eg SPSS) to createREC, CHK and QES files
Hmm... I may have just found a round-about way of doing this for SPSS - as usual I only find a solution after asking about it!
I just realised that I can save my SPSS file as a STATA file (I was looking for an SPSS export capability when all I needed was "Save As"), and then import the STATA file into EpiData. This doesn't give me a QES file (I think generating a QES file from a REC file is something currently being worked on?) but does give me a CHK file with value labels and a REC file with variable labels and data.
Only one small problem - the values which were integers seem to now have 4 decimal places, which without a QES file to revise from I don't think I can correct? It also means that the format does not match the value labels (integers) which causes errors. Perhaps I am importing into the wrong version of STATA... Still, a big step from where I was!
Thanks, Charity
On 1/10/07, Charity wrote:
Hello,
I know that EpiData has the ability to output data in SPSS format (a TXT file and an SPS file which can be run to create a SAV file) - is it possible to reverse this process and either use a SAV file or a SPS/TXT combination to create REC and CHK files (and ideally even the QES file to go with them)?
I'm also interested if I could generate REC/CHK files from other file formats, such as Triple-S (and output to this too) - what options are there currently for doing this. If nothing, are any being worked on or considered for implementation in future versions? I would be interested in helping with developing these things if that is possible or would help also.
Thanks, Charity
Thank you Gilles,
Seems so clear I'm (almost) embarrassed - why ever did I get the idea that I *couldn't* make a QES file from a REC file!? Silly me.
Thanks again, Charity
On 1/11/07, epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca wrote:
It is possible to post generate a QES file from a REC: 'TOOLS' / 'QES file from REC file' Gilles ______________________________________________
Only one small problem - the values which were integers seem to now have 4 decimal places, which without a QES file to revise from I don't think I can correct? It also means that the format does not match the value labels (integers) which causes errors. Perhaps I am importing into the wrong version of STATA... Still, a big step from where I was!
Dear all,
You will find here an interesting comapraison of free tools for Outbreak Investigation http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2007/070111.asp#4
And of course Epidata is recommended :)
Thank's to all participating and specialy to Jens !
Gilles
epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca wrote:
Dear all,
You will find here an interesting comapraison of free tools for Outbreak Investigation http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2007/070111.asp#4
And of course Epidata is recommended :)
Thank's to all participating and specialy to Jens !
Gilles
Unfortunately the authors of that article have confused "public domain" with "available to anyone at no cost".
Software is only "in the public domain" if no-one asserts copyright over it - therefore it is owned by no-one , and consequently anyone can create modified versions and assume ownership over those modified versions and sell or distribute them to others.
"Public domain" software, which is quite rare, should not be confused with "free, open-source software" (FOSS, sometimes also referred to as "free/libre open-source software" (FLOSS). For FOSS, copyright ownership is always strongly asserted and protected. However, the copyright holders of FOSS also grant a license to others which allows them to use, modify and re-distribute the software to others, provided that the FOSS licensing arrangements and the copyright ownership remain unchanged. The underlying source code is also made available to permit others to modify or improve the software as they see fit. In practice, these arrangements tend to encourage co-operative improvement of software projects, rather than competitive splitting of projects into incompatible derivatives, although the latter can and does sometimes happen. The main effect of FOSS licensing is to remove the monopoly which the copyright holder otherwise has on the fixing of bugs and the creation of improved or customised versions.
An example of public domain software in the health sphere is the hospital information system VistA created by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. In theory, parts of Epi Info written by US Federal government employees at CDC are, under US law, in the public domain. However attempts by various parties over the last decade to obtain access to the underlying source (program) code for the theoretically public domain parts of Epi Info have been unsuccessful. In addition some parts of the original Epi Info and large parts of Epi Info for Windows were written by or belong to parties outside the US CDC and thus are not even theoretically public domain. Thus Epi Info is at best partially public domain in a theoretical sense, but in practice is not, because CDC assert copyright of the software as a whole in the only form in which it can be freely downloaded from their Web site.
EpiData is definitely not "public domain". Copyright over all parts of it is asserted by the EpiData Association.
Neither Epi Info or EpiData are free, open source software (FOSS) - they are not provided under a FOSS license which permits enhancement or modification or redistribution to others, nor is the programming source code needed to make such enhancements available. I understand that there are long-term plans to release EpiData and its underlying source code under a free, open source license, but the timeframe for this change in licensing is unknown at this stage.
Both Epi Info and EpiData are available to anyone at no cost. This is probably the issue of greatest immediate interest to most epidemiologists and other public health practitioners. However, in the long-term, free, open source licensing of epidemiological and public health tools should, in theory, lead to greater collaboration over their development and thus faster progress.
Tim C
Dear Tim,
Thank's for that very documented summary. As you mention it , "available to anyone at no cost" is the first issue but definitively open source tools is at least the goal, but probably also a way to achieve the goal of a public health tools. (imho)
Gilles
epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca a écrit :
epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca wrote:
Dear all,
You will find here an interesting comapraison of free tools for Outbreak Investigation http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2007/070111.asp#4
And of course Epidata is recommended :)
Thank's to all participating and specialy to Jens !
Gilles
Unfortunately the authors of that article have confused "public domain" with "available to anyone at no cost".
Software is only "in the public domain" if no-one asserts copyright over it - therefore it is owned by no-one , and consequently anyone can create modified versions and assume ownership over those modified versions and sell or distribute them to others.
"Public domain" software, which is quite rare, should not be confused with "free, open-source software" (FOSS, sometimes also referred to as "free/libre open-source software" (FLOSS). For FOSS, copyright ownership is always strongly asserted and protected. However, the copyright holders of FOSS also grant a license to others which allows them to use, modify and re-distribute the software to others, provided that the FOSS licensing arrangements and the copyright ownership remain unchanged. The underlying source code is also made available to permit others to modify or improve the software as they see fit. In practice, these arrangements tend to encourage co-operative improvement of software projects, rather than competitive splitting of projects into incompatible derivatives, although the latter can and does sometimes happen. The main effect of FOSS licensing is to remove the monopoly which the copyright holder otherwise has on the fixing of bugs and the creation of improved or customised versions.
An example of public domain software in the health sphere is the hospital information system VistA created by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. In theory, parts of Epi Info written by US Federal government employees at CDC are, under US law, in the public domain. However attempts by various parties over the last decade to obtain access to the underlying source (program) code for the theoretically public domain parts of Epi Info have been unsuccessful. In addition some parts of the original Epi Info and large parts of Epi Info for Windows were written by or belong to parties outside the US CDC and thus are not even theoretically public domain. Thus Epi Info is at best partially public domain in a theoretical sense, but in practice is not, because CDC assert copyright of the software as a whole in the only form in which it can be freely downloaded from their Web site.
EpiData is definitely not "public domain". Copyright over all parts of it is asserted by the EpiData Association.
Neither Epi Info or EpiData are free, open source software (FOSS) - they are not provided under a FOSS license which permits enhancement or modification or redistribution to others, nor is the programming source code needed to make such enhancements available. I understand that there are long-term plans to release EpiData and its underlying source code under a free, open source license, but the timeframe for this change in licensing is unknown at this stage.
Both Epi Info and EpiData are available to anyone at no cost. This is probably the issue of greatest immediate interest to most epidemiologists and other public health practitioners. However, in the long-term, free, open source licensing of epidemiological and public health tools should, in theory, lead to greater collaboration over their development and thus faster progress.
Tim C
EpiData-list mailing list EpiData-list@lists.umanitoba.ca http://lists.umanitoba.ca/mailman/listinfo/epidata-list
epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca
-
epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca