Skip to content
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

[Schema] Order fields #177

Closed
duncandewhurst opened this issue Aug 7, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #220
Closed

[Schema] Order fields #177

duncandewhurst opened this issue Aug 7, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #220

Comments

@duncandewhurst
Copy link
Contributor

In GFDRR/rdls-spreadsheet-template#1 (comment), @stufraser1 suggested applying a logical ordering to fields in the spreadsheet template, which are currently ordered by the order they appear in the schema.

We should apply the logical ordering in the schema so it appears in any resources that we generate from the schema, such as the schema browser and reference tables in the documentation.

@stufraser1 @matamadio do you want to propose an ordering or is that something that you would like ODS to take a first pass at?

@odscjen odscjen added this to Under discussion in 2023/24 Standard Development Aug 7, 2023
@matamadio
Copy link
Contributor

matamadio commented Aug 7, 2023

Order of tabs:

  • Dataset
  • Attribution
  • Sources
  • Referenced by
  • Hazard tabs
  • Exposure cost
  • Vulnerability cost
  • Vulnerability gazetteer
  • Loss cost
  • Resources
  • Spatial_gazetteer entries

Suggesting to color code the tabs in the excel (common tabs in b/w and then a color for each component). So it is easier to see which can be dropped if not used.

The order of fields:

  • agree to move temporal resolution right after spatial attributes as Stu suggested in other issue.

@duncandewhurst
Copy link
Contributor Author

Since resources and spatial_gazetteer_entries are 'common' tabs, I think it would sense to have them appear before the component tabs. Otherwise, the b/w tabs will be split, with some appearing before the component tabs and some appearing after. Sound good?

@stufraser1
Copy link
Member

All sounds good, moving to agreed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants