-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Represent multiple and multi-year budgets #222
Comments
The approach of using I've added a 1.1 tag, as this is something we should look at during the 1.1 upgrade, as I imagine there will be a number of other publishers wanting to express multiple budgets into the future. For example, breaking down budget by year. |
This is also an issue in #293 around multi-year budgets, where the publishers want to provide a more detailed breakdown to budget over years. In the case of EU data, we also see interest in knowing whether a project has been funded by EU funds. In version 1.0 of the standard, we anticipated that budget information would be handled primarily by separate standards, such as the fiscal data package. However, this has taken a different route in it's development right now as far as I understand, so we could consider much more detailed budget information in OCDS 1.1. Views are welcome on: (a) How much budget information OCDS should aim to include in the planning stage; (b) How this could be modelled effectively; |
There is also an issue in #352 around multiple budgets funding a framework contracting process in which an additionalBudgets array is proposed. We should consider how these issues fit together for the 1.1 upgrade. |
Developed in #377 |
At the moment there is only one budget slot in the Planning.
But, in our contracting data, there are some contracts where the money comes from multiple budgets. We represent this as budget and extrabudget.
At the open contracting workshop in Berlin we have thought of two possible representations:
additionalBudgets
which is a list of budgets.We looked at our data and it was only a small percentage ~4% that had this issue, so we think maybe the second option is better, especially as it is just an addition, not a change to the current standard. But that 4% is over 500,000 contracts, so it is important for us to represent this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: