-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Which codelists to include on codelists.md? #233
Comments
Once this issue is closed, I can update #234 and then ask CDS to translate the iterative improvements. |
If we review which extensions to include, we can check each off as we validate which ought to be included. Used in
To be removed:
Explicitly referenced in guidance:
Explicitly referenced in
And lastly:
|
My preference is to omit extensions that aren't mentioned in the guidance, from both the profile's schema and from the example. There are many extensions that are relevant to PPPs that aren't in the profile (given that many/most extensions have now been authored after OCDS for PPPs was), but they aren't included here. Publishers are expected to consider such extensions in the normal course of publishing OCDS. |
Going back to the issue description, if we omit the unchecked extensions, then I'm fine with just including all codelists from all extensions in the profile, since we'll have ended up with the same number of codelists that we have now (after removing 2 bids and 3 requirements codelists). |
Once #245 is merged, The example is based on Red Compartida's implementation of the World Bank framework, which is why it includes some extensions and fields that are not explicitly referenced in the framework reference. So that learning from that implementation is not lost, we should consider whether to update the framework reference to mention these extensions and what they can be used to publish. |
Are the extensions directly related to content from The World Bank Framework for Disclosure in Public Private Partnership Projects, or were they just useful for disclosing PPPs in the case of Red Compartida? If the latter, then they don't belong as part of the consolidated extension, and should be opt-in. If so, we can create a separate issue to add additional guidance pages for using extensions relevant to PPPs. |
bids See above, this should be included in the consolidated extension. documentation_details Although the fields in this extension are not explicitly referenced in the Markdown content on the framework reference page, prior to daf991e the fields in this extension were displayed in the schema tables shown on that page. The concepts in the extension are not explicitly referenced in the WB framework, but the extension was developed to meet needs identified during the initial development of OCDS for PPPs, including:
As such, I think documentation_details should still be included in the consolidated extension. We should also restore at least one process_title I'm not sure what purpose this is serving. In the example, the same values are provided in The framework reference only mentions the fields under budget, requirements, transaction_milestones These extensions were useful for Red Compartida, but I'm happy for them to be opt-in otherwise. |
Sounds good to keep bids and documentation_details, and to remove the rest. I think all "Document" links point to https://standard.open-contracting.org/profiles/ppp/latest/en/reference/documents/, which has a table with all extended fields. |
The codelists listed are:
From the extensions used, this excludes:
We can either:
If the former, the solution is easy (add the 5 from the second list). If the latter, we need to review which of the codelists are actually used by the profile. For example, we don't use
bidStatistics.csv
anywhere.In fact, why is the bid extension in the profile at all? It's used in the example, but that section of the example is never referenced. (This might lead to a review of which extensions to include in the first place.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: