Poll: should cchsflow adopt meaningful harmonized variable names?

[DougManuel]

Context

cchsflow has historically used StatsCan variable codes (for example SMK_207) as harmonized variable names. These codes are stable and traceable but are increasingly hard to interpret and less meaningful as variables shift modules or are consolidated across cycles.

Proposal: move toward meaningful, concept-based names (for example former_daily_smoker) while keeping code-based names as aliases for backward compatibility.

This would be a breaking change in principle, but aliases could preserve existing pipelines.

Example: former daily smoker

Proposed concept name: former_daily_smoker.

Cycle	Master source	PUMF source	Module
2001	SMKA_207	SMKAG207	SMK
2003	SMKC_207	SMKCG207	SMK
2005	SMKE_207	SMKEG207	SMK
2007–2014	SMK_207	SMKG207	SMK
2015–2021	SMK_040*	SMKG040*	SMK
2022–2023	SPU_15*	–	SPU

• Combined variable covering current and former daily smokers.

Important: from 2015 onward, the source variable is combined. If we adopt meaningful names, we must be explicit about semantic consistency, derivation, and availability by cycle.

Comment guidance

If you vote, please briefly note:
• your typical workflow (PUMF, Master, or both);
• whether you rely on StatsCan codes;
• whether readability or API stability matters more for your work.