Review the numbering of all newly numeric codes

[Bjwebb]

Steven made a comment about the ActivityDateType numbering, but we should check the other codelists too:

http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/ActivityDateType/
http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/GazetteerAgency/
http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/OrganisationRole/
http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/TransactionType/
http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/SectorVocabulary/

(Issue for the change to numeric: #25)

[Bjwebb]

@bill-anderson Could you review the new numbering used for each of these codelists?

[Bjwebb]

Another proposal might be to ensure that the default value for a Vocabulary is always numbered 1. ie. that SectorVocabulary has code 1 as 5 digit DAC codes. Note that SectorVocabulary probably also has too many codes on it, see #43

[bill-anderson]

Agree with 1 = default value. Not fussed about others. I'm sure @stevieflow will have a grand plan

[stevieflow]

The concern with ActivityDate was that the numeric codes may not have "flowed". Granted, this may seem arbitary, but we might want to decide whether to order the numbers by date period (start dates, then end dates) rather type (actuals, then planned)....

[Bjwebb]

Renumbered SectorVocabulary in this commit. I've glanced through the other codelists, and the only other potential issue I spot is OrganisationRole now has Accountable as code 1 (because I numbered them alphabetically), but Accountable is actually one of the less used codes.

@stevieflow I agree that ActivityDate might also be useful numbered more chronologically. How about:

• 1- start-planned
• 2 - start-actual
• 3 - end-planned
• 4 - end-actual

[stevieflow]

ok thanks

Agree with the new numbers for ActivityDateType

@bill-anderson any thoughts on OrganisationRole ?

[stevieflow]

Looking at OrganisationRole - @bill-anderson

http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/OrganisationRole/

Could these be in a different order, perhaps?:

Funcing
Accountable
Extending
Implementing

[bill-anderson]

Could be. I agree with whatever you think is best

[stevieflow]

Definitive answer!

1 Funding
2 Accountable
3 Extending
4 Implementing

seems more in line with "flow" than:

1 Accountable
2 Extending
3 Funding
4 Implementing

? @jonihillman @iatisupport ?

[wendyrogers]

Definitive answer looks about right to me!

[stevieflow]

Do we take the revised order as a change for @Bjwebb to implement therefore?

[bill-anderson]

As he said - "I agree with whatever you think is best"

[stevieflow]

Assigned to @Bjwebb to implement

[stevieflow]

@Bjwebb I have created new Issues for the three codelists that need renumbering

Aside from that, the only comment I can see in this Issue that may need some action is #48 (comment) - is this correct (or can we close this?)?

[Bjwebb]

I think this issue can now be closed.