[Schema] Hazard object (i.e. hazard type and process) required in both event_set and event?

[odscjen]

EDIT: a number of these where already being addressed in another PR #181

Noting a number of necessary minor schema changes that testing of the spreadsheet conversion has brought up.

* change version type from "number" to "string"

event_set.hazard_type is down as required, but it's not actually a field within event_set rather its a field within Hazard which is referenced in event_set.hazards. event.hazard is also down as required and events is required in event_set. We needed this info at both event_set and event level (as discussed in #91) but by having both as required it does mean we're asking people to duplicate info in multiple places in situations where the hazard type and process and intensity measure are the same for every event in the event_set. But maybe that's a price we have to pay to ensure it's included in at least one place? @matamadio @stufraser1 @duncandewhurst thoughts?

* Hazard has process as required but the field is actually processes

[duncandewhurst]

These issues are addressed in #181. However, you're right that we do need to decide what to do about making hazards required on Event_set.

Personally, I favour fewer required fields to avoid creating unintended barriers to publication. Therefore, I would remove make hazards optional.

[duncandewhurst]

From today's check-in call with @matamadio and @odscrachel, we agreed that Event_set.hazards should be required and that it is OK for hazard data to be reported at both Event_set (summary) level and Event (detailed) level in the case where Event_set.events is provided.

We'll need to check and update the required fields and descriptions in the schema. Also noting the need to clearly explain the relationship between event sets and events in the documentation, which should be addressed by #178

[odscjen]

this has now been dealt with in #181 and reviewing the descriptions they all seem to cover what was agreed so I'm closing this