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

Policy Requirements #646

Merged
merged 71 commits into from Sep 2, 2021
Merged

Policy Requirements #646

merged 71 commits into from Sep 2, 2021

Conversation

schnuerle
Copy link
Member

This pull request is written to fulfill the needs of the discussions started in Issue #608 around agencies expressing data sharing requirements more clearly.

Explain pull request

This would add a new endpoint Requirements under the Policy API that allows agencies to digitally express only the data they need for their jurisdiction and operating permit.

Is this a breaking change

  • No, not breaking

Impacted Spec

Which spec(s) will this pull request impact?

  • policy

Additional context

The initial PR is a draft that will require feedback and edits from the MDS community before becoming part of the release, including external guidance documents and a new OMF repo to host requirement files for some agencies.

@schnuerle schnuerle added enhancement New feature or request Schema Implications for JSON Schema or OpenAPI Policy Specific to the Policy API privacy Implications around privacy for the attention of the OMF Privacy Committee labels May 20, 2021
@schnuerle schnuerle added this to the 1.2.0 milestone May 20, 2021
@schnuerle schnuerle requested a review from a team May 20, 2021 15:45
@schnuerle schnuerle requested a review from a team as a code owner May 20, 2021 15:45
@schnuerle schnuerle linked an issue May 20, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request
policy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
policy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
policy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
policy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@jrheard jrheard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just some typo fixes!

policy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
policy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
policy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
policy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
policy/examples/requirements.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jfh01
Copy link
Contributor

jfh01 commented Aug 25, 2021

What do you think about reordering the list of examples here? https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/blob/ms-requirements/policy/examples/requirements.md. Thinking from most->least common/complex. e.g. start with a simple MDS provider + GBFS and then get into some of the other options

@schnuerle
Copy link
Member Author

What do you think about reordering the list of examples here? https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/blob/ms-requirements/policy/examples/requirements.md. Thinking from most->least common/complex. e.g. start with a simple MDS provider + GBFS and then get into some of the other options

That was the intention with this list. Here's the current order (with my comment as to order chosen):

  1. Policy and Geography (easiest, just a city serving up 2 potentially static files for providers to use)
  2. Vehicles Only (easiest, one provider endpoint, a way to use MDS for regulation instead of GBFS)
  3. Trips Only (easy, one provider endpoint, but a bit more too it than vehicles)
  4. Trips with No Routes, Vehicles IDs, or Dates (easy, a version related to the previous example, with less data)
  5. Provider and Other APIs (medium, getting multiple APIs from providers)
  6. Agency (harder, implementing push APIs hosted by agencies)
  7. Geography Driven Events (outlier - example of a specific feature implementation since it's a special case)
  8. GBFS Only (easiest, but last since it's outside of OMF purview).

So if you think the order should be different, let me know how.

policy/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@schnuerle
Copy link
Member Author

After lots of great review and feedback from dozens of people over the last few months, I believe this is ready to be merged to 'dev'! Thanks to @quicklywilliam for the original idea with #608, and this has grown to solve other issues raised by the community as well including #507 and #639.

If there are new suggested changes that come up, we can open an Issue or Discussion to resolve them before the 1.2.0 release candidate is made for approval, or even make minor updates once the RC is made.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Policy Specific to the Policy API privacy Implications around privacy for the attention of the OMF Privacy Committee Schema Implications for JSON Schema or OpenAPI
Projects
None yet
8 participants