Discussion: Move other blocks to top-level, similar to parties

[jpmckinney]

In #888 (comment), we have a case where multiple items have the same delivery location. If this repetition is acceptable, there is no action here. Otherwise, we can consider moving locations to the top-level and using references, much like organization references to the top-level parties array.

There may be other objects that are frequently re-used that ought to be given the same treatment.

For comparison, the EU's eForms have little hierarchy, with more references.

[mrshll1001]

I've sometimes thought that the Document blocks could be moved into a top-level array similar to parties, and referenced appropriately. However the flip side of this is that documents are often tied quite closely to the stage of procurements; so might not make as much sense to do this as I originally think. Keen to explore it as an option.

[jpmckinney]

@mrshll1001 Are documents frequently duplicated across the many arrays? If not, there is less of a motivation to make the change. (We can of course test for this in Kingfisher Process.)

[yolile]

what about the items? at least their description and classification/additional classifications etc and the in the "item reference" we can add the quantities, values. etc

[jpmckinney]

Hmm, it would be a somewhat different model, but it could work. In what cases are an item's description/classification/etc. duplicated? (Besides between tender, award and contract.)

[yolile]

I was thinking on #904 where we used items in auctions in the auction stage and also in #126 in the bid stage

[yolile]

an example from Paraguay where there is partial duplication between tender.items and award.items: https://contrataciones.gov.py/datos/api/v3/doc/ocds/record/ocds-03ad3f-331547-2

[duncandewhurst]

I haven't seen examples of the same document being duplicated across multiple arrays.

With regard to items and locations, we should consider the trade-off between reducing repetition, adding complexity for data users (joining to a top-level array), and introducing the risk of inconsistencies (between the id in a reference and the id in a top-level array).

[jpmckinney]

Items have values that can be different in each context (e.g. total quantity that a buyer wants to purchase, vs quantity a bidder is offering, vs the quantity awarded to a supplier).

I think a system of "partial" references doesn't have any promise. It would be confusing. We allow name in organization references, but it's expected to be consistent and is only provided for ease of use.

We haven't identified other candidates for promotion to the top-level, so closing.