中国工业企业统计
合集下载
相关主题
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
needs clarification
EG comments on SIEC
❖ Explanatory notes
Editing suggested -> needs review (distinguish definitions from supplementary text)
application Classifications are typically more aligned with data
presentation than collection ❖ Do not have to fully reflect contents of a questionnaire
EG comments on SIEC
❖ Primary use of the classification
Improved from earlier draft How does SIEC act as guide for other
classification schemes? What is relationship to other standards?
Not just a flat list of items Building blocks are mutually exclusive
❖ Defined using consistent criteria Different levels of the classification should have statistical
EG comments on SIEC
❖ UndeLeabharlann Baidulying concepts
Scope refers to “products” ❖ But the concept of “energy products” is introduced late ❖ Should this be made clear in the title?
Renewable vs. non-renewable; organic vs. non-organic vs. mixed
EG comments on SIEC
❖ Number of levels / coding structure / balance
This is a major concern SIEC coding system seems excessive (a 10-character code
❖ Determine if a classification can be a member of the International Family of Classifications
General remarks
❖ A classification provides exhaustive building blocks and an aggregation structure for a defined scope of objects
for a classification with only 67 items at the most detailed level) Detailed categories appear necessary in only few areas
❖ Can a regrouping help? ❖ What is the use of top and intermediate groupings? ❖ What are criteria for grouping? Examples for alternative structures have been given; subdivisions for section 5 have been suggested -> may need better explanation
Review of classifications
❖ According to general criteria defined in:
Best practice guidelines for developing international statistical classifications
❖ These criteria are being applied to all international classifications
Criteria for delineating categories are not always clear ❖ Differ from other classifications (e.g. CPC) ❖ Impacts criteria for aggregation
Suggestions: ❖ More explicitly reflect primary vs. secondary EP ❖ Review criteria for subdividing waste:
EG comments on SIEC
❖ Correspondence tables
Partial references to other standard classifications should be avoided (in particular CPC as reference classification for products) ❖ Difficult if CPC (or others) do not provide the detail necessary
This could be taken into account for future CPC revisions (example: Agricultural products)
Particular concern: Only partial coverage of CPC items
Develop links to updated classifications (e.g. HS 2012) Observation: SIEC and HS treat coking coal differently ->
EG comments on SIEC
❖ Explanatory notes
Editing suggested -> needs review (distinguish definitions from supplementary text)
application Classifications are typically more aligned with data
presentation than collection ❖ Do not have to fully reflect contents of a questionnaire
EG comments on SIEC
❖ Primary use of the classification
Improved from earlier draft How does SIEC act as guide for other
classification schemes? What is relationship to other standards?
Not just a flat list of items Building blocks are mutually exclusive
❖ Defined using consistent criteria Different levels of the classification should have statistical
EG comments on SIEC
❖ UndeLeabharlann Baidulying concepts
Scope refers to “products” ❖ But the concept of “energy products” is introduced late ❖ Should this be made clear in the title?
Renewable vs. non-renewable; organic vs. non-organic vs. mixed
EG comments on SIEC
❖ Number of levels / coding structure / balance
This is a major concern SIEC coding system seems excessive (a 10-character code
❖ Determine if a classification can be a member of the International Family of Classifications
General remarks
❖ A classification provides exhaustive building blocks and an aggregation structure for a defined scope of objects
for a classification with only 67 items at the most detailed level) Detailed categories appear necessary in only few areas
❖ Can a regrouping help? ❖ What is the use of top and intermediate groupings? ❖ What are criteria for grouping? Examples for alternative structures have been given; subdivisions for section 5 have been suggested -> may need better explanation
Review of classifications
❖ According to general criteria defined in:
Best practice guidelines for developing international statistical classifications
❖ These criteria are being applied to all international classifications
Criteria for delineating categories are not always clear ❖ Differ from other classifications (e.g. CPC) ❖ Impacts criteria for aggregation
Suggestions: ❖ More explicitly reflect primary vs. secondary EP ❖ Review criteria for subdividing waste:
EG comments on SIEC
❖ Correspondence tables
Partial references to other standard classifications should be avoided (in particular CPC as reference classification for products) ❖ Difficult if CPC (or others) do not provide the detail necessary
This could be taken into account for future CPC revisions (example: Agricultural products)
Particular concern: Only partial coverage of CPC items
Develop links to updated classifications (e.g. HS 2012) Observation: SIEC and HS treat coking coal differently ->