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

Clarify role of publisher and definition of publisher name #420

Closed
ekoner opened this issue Feb 3, 2017 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1067
Closed

Clarify role of publisher and definition of publisher name #420

ekoner opened this issue Feb 3, 2017 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1067
Labels
quick Semantics Relating to field and code descriptions
Milestone

Comments

@ekoner
Copy link

ekoner commented Feb 3, 2017

publisher name is currently defined as:

The name of the organisation or department responsible for publishing this data.

It would be clearer if it explicitly defined the role of the publisher, for example:

The name of the organisation or department responsible for publishing this OCDS data.

This has raised questions in a jurisdiction where the buyers are legally responsible for publishing their information to a central platform. A separate body is then responsible for outputting to OCDS.

@ekoner ekoner added the Focus - Documentation Includes corrections, clarifications, new guidance, and UI/UX issues label Feb 3, 2017
@jpmckinney jpmckinney added this to the 1.2 milestone Dec 27, 2017
@jpmckinney jpmckinney modified the milestones: 1.2, 1.1.4 Dec 10, 2018
@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member

This is a quick fix, but as it changes the description of a field, leaving for 1.2.

@martinszy
Copy link

Hello, I'm coming from the 1.1.4 announcement from a month ago I just read. And scrolling trough the list of issues I see that publisher is going to get a refresh and I think this might be the right spot to raise this:
We are a CSO re-publisher, we convert older contracts to OCDS and publish them, along with newer ones, we are also in the process of merging several versions of the same contract from different systems and publishing compiled releases of them, with the same or more information than the government published ones, and covering a longer timescale (20 years, vs 2 years for gov).
We are not the publisher of this data, we are a re-publisher.
Is it alright to say that we need a republisher extension to convey this information, or can we adapt the standard to include a way to specify original publisher and "aggregator" or something.

What do you think?

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member

For now, we recommend using this extension, which adds a publisher block on the release. Then:

  1. For a release originally published by another publisher, add a publisher block to their release and copy the publisher block from their package. Make no other changes to their release.
  2. For a release for which you are the original publisher, add a publisher block to the release with your details.
  3. When creating a compiled release, replace the publisher block with your details.

That way, information about the original publisher is always available.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
quick Semantics Relating to field and code descriptions
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants