OC4IDS 0.9.4: Pre-release tasks

[duncandewhurst]

I'm creating this issue to list any final tasks that we'll need to do once the other issues in the 0.9.4 milestone are closed:

From #422:

• Update titles and descriptions in sustainability.yaml with the final versions from the CoST IDS sustainability elements spreadsheet
• Final copy-edit of mapping and examples in sustainability.yaml
• Resolve any outstanding issues reported by ./manage.py lint
• Check the built version of schema.md and update :collapse: option of jsonschema directives as needed (probably just for the project table).
• Run ocdskit schema-strict
• Check and update ordering of new fields
• Replace csv-table-no-translate with csv-table for existing mapping tables (CoST IDS to OCDS mapping: Link in csv-table-no-translate is not rendered #383)

[duncandewhurst]

When copy-editing the mappings in sustainability.yaml we can reduce repetition of the CoST IDS disclosure formats, e.g. for land compensation budget

    disclosure format: Disclose budget allocated to fund land compensation (E.g. \[value\]).
    mapping: 'Project Level: Set `.social.landCompensationBudget` to the amount and currency of the budget allocated for land compensation.'

Can be shortened to

    disclosure format: Disclose budget allocated to fund land compensation (E.g. \[value\]).
    mapping: 'Project Level: Map to `.social.landCompensationBudget`.'

[odscjen]

• Remove extra "Open codelists" heading in codelists.md

[duncandewhurst]

* [ ]  Check and update ordering of new fields

I figure it makes sense to review the ordering of all the top-level fields. @jpmckinney please let me know if you're happy with the following ordering:

• 'General' metadata:
  • id
  • identifiers
  • updated
  • language
  • title
  • description
  • status
  • locations
• Type/purpose data:
  • type
  • sector
  • purpose
  • policyAlignment
  • benefits
  • social
  • environment
  • additionalClassifications
• Time-based data:
  • period
  • identificationPeriod
  • preparationPeriod
  • implementationPeriod
  • completionPeriod
  • maintenancePeriod
  • decommissioningPeriod
  • assetLifetime
  • milestones
  • forecasts
  • metrics
  • completion
• Monetary data:
  • budget
  • costMeasurements
  • transactions
• Organizational data:
  • publicAuthority
  • parties
  • lobbyingMeetings
• References:
  • documents
  • contractingProcesses
  • relatedProjects

[jpmckinney]

We can break up the thematic grouping where the field relates to a basic question. Under OCP's upcoming strategy, we're thinking for OC4IDS that the basic questions are "Who built what with whom, for how much, when and where?"

• who: publicAuthority
• built what: title, description
• with whom: I forget if this is only in contracting process data or also in project data
• for how much: budget
• when: period
• and where: locations

So maybe the listing below (moved fields in bold).

I would not (edit: original text forgot the word "not"!) be opposed to grouping fields that are only used in sustainability modules together at the end (policyAlignment, benefits, social, environment, lobbyingMeetings – can't remember if additionalClassifications is currently only used in modules).

If that's done, then parties can be moved up.

• OC4IDS metadata:
  • id
  • updated
  • language
• Cross-referencing:
  • identifiers (kept at the top, as fundamental for connecting to other datasets)
• Basic metadata:
  • publicAuthority
  • title
  • description
  • budget
  • period
  • locations
• Workflow data:
  • status (swapped position with locations)
• Type/purpose data:
  • type
  • sector
  • purpose
• Organizational data:
  • parties
• Periods:
  • assetLifetime (moved up as this can put the others into context, and describing the asset is often of greater interest than the timelines for individual stages)
  • identificationPeriod
  • preparationPeriod
  • implementationPeriod
  • completionPeriod
  • maintenancePeriod
  • decommissioningPeriod
• Time-based data:
  • forecasts
  • metrics
  • milestones (moved next to completion, as completion is sort of describing a final milestone)
  • completion
• Monetary data:
  • costMeasurements
  • transactions
• References:
  • documents
  • contractingProcesses
  • relatedProjects
• Sustainability modules:
  • policyAlignment
  • benefits
  • social
  • environment
  • additionalClassifications
  • lobbyingMeetings

[duncandewhurst]

All sounds good to me. additionalClassifications is referenced in the 'core' CoST IDS to OC4IDS mapping in the context of sector and purpose so I've moved it to the end of the type/purpose group.