Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 5, 2023. It is now read-only.

"Enterprise Data Inventory & Public Data Listing" as one evaluated category. #106

Closed
rebeccawilliams opened this issue Sep 10, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@rebeccawilliams
Copy link
Contributor

EDI metric updates, these may already be addressed:

*Rename "Is the EDI available on Data.gov?" Field to reflect when there are no redactions/everything is available via the PDL.

  • Think we should add something for # of datasets with redactions, and % of redacted datasets with explanations in "rights" metadata field?

Notes from @philipashlock:

In talking with Jamie we decided:

  • We'll keep the EDI tab separate from PDL regardless of how EDI is submitted, but we can rename the last EDI field from "Is the EDI available on Data.gov?" to "PDL includes non-public datasets and no redactions"
  • The non-public dataset change metrics would display under EDI
  • We'll keep the accessLevel fields just under the EDI tab
@rebeccawilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

See #119.

@rebeccawilliams rebeccawilliams changed the title EDI Metric Updates "Enterprise Data Inventory & Public Data Listing" as one evaluated category. Dec 21, 2015
@rebeccawilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

I renamed this issue to reflect the broader issue that EDIs and PDLs are often one and the same.

@rebeccawilliams rebeccawilliams modified the milestones: November 2015, February 29th 2016 Jan 14, 2016
@philipashlock
Copy link
Member

@CEhmann You referenced this from the #135 by saying to add a new field labeled “Agency provides a public Enterprise Data Inventory on data.gov” but it seems like that would be contradicting the change we already made here.

Previously the field was labeled "Is the EDI available on Data.gov?" which is essentially what you're asking for now, but Rebecca thought it would be less confusing to instead label it as "PDL includes non-public datasets and no redactions" which is what we're currently using on the site.

Just to confirm, you're ok with essentially reverting back to what it was originally, albeit with slightly different wording, correct?

@justgrimes
Copy link
Contributor

@philipashlock Yes, then we are advocating for this to be reverted back. The question "PDL have non-public data assets w/ no redactions" is not the same as "EDI listed as a data asset within the PDL". There still seems to be some general confusion around how to handle EDI/PDL reporting; separating out and refining the questions on the dashboard will help to address this issue.

@rebeccawilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing previous feature requests to focus on simplification and automation.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants