Guidance suggestions

[duncandewhurst]

Whilst reviewing the publisher checklist in CRM-3919, I noticed a few areas in which we could improve or add to the implementation guidance:

1. Split up the work: Rename to Complete your mapping or Document your mapping. Otherwise, we have a step for completing the technical assessment (Identify your data sources) but no step for actually completing the field-level and codelist mappings.
2. Perform final checks: Add 'Check that your package metadata conforms to the schema'. Publishers frequently populate the package metadata incorrectly, or forget to update placeholder values, so we should include a prompt here.
3. Finalize your publication policy: Add 'a description of any differences in the contracting processes and fields available via different access methods and formats'. This point was prioritised in the work around the original publisher checklist and is not covered elsewhere in the documentation.

[yolile]

Additionally, we have a Desgin->Build your team section, and then a Map->Involve the right people section, do we need both? If so, should the second reference the first?

[yolile]

In the Establish your publication formats and access methods section or in the Determine your system architecture section, should we add a paragraph like "determine where to publish your data" eg, in an existing gov open data portal, in a brand new page, etc?

[jpmckinney]

Additionally, we have a Desgin->Build your team section, and then a Map->Involve the right people section, do we need both? If so, should the second reference the first?

We need both. Every step involves a different combination of people. We can maybe align the names of the roles (data expert / technical expert, policy expert / procurement expert), but otherwise the sections are fine.

In the Establish your publication formats and access methods section or in the Determine your system architecture section, should we add a paragraph like "determine where to publish your data" eg, in an existing gov open data portal, in a brand new page, etc?

I don't know whether this has been a specific stumbling block - implementers seem to do this task without specific guidance. If there's a problem, we can address it in the documentation; otherwise, it's better to keep the content to the minimum.

[jpmckinney]

1. Split up the work: Rename to Complete your mapping or Document your mapping. Otherwise, we have a step for completing the technical assessment (Identify your data sources) but no step for actually completing the field-level and codelist mappings.

The first following sentence uses "complete the mapping" so I'll use that as the heading.

2. Perform final checks: Add 'Check that your package metadata conforms to the schema'. Publishers frequently populate the package metadata incorrectly, or forget to update placeholder values, so we should include a prompt here.

We intend to deprecate all package metadata in 1.2 #1084, so this will be fairly short-lived. My preference is to leave it out.

3. Finalize your publication policy: Add 'a description of any differences in the contracting processes and fields available via different access methods and formats'. This point was prioritised in the work around the original publisher checklist and is not covered elsewhere in the documentation.

I'll add this bullet after the format/access method bullet, so that it's in context.