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

Discussion: Move other blocks to top-level, similar to parties #893

Closed
jpmckinney opened this issue Jul 23, 2019 · 8 comments
Closed

Discussion: Move other blocks to top-level, similar to parties #893

jpmckinney opened this issue Jul 23, 2019 · 8 comments
Labels
discussion Schema Relating to other changes in the JSON Schema (renamed fields, schema properties, etc.)
Milestone

Comments

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member

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.

@jpmckinney jpmckinney added the Schema Relating to other changes in the JSON Schema (renamed fields, schema properties, etc.) label Jul 23, 2019
@jpmckinney jpmckinney added this to the 1.2.0 milestone Jul 23, 2019
@jpmckinney jpmckinney added Schema: Fields Relating to adding or deprecating fields in the JSON Schema and removed Schema Relating to other changes in the JSON Schema (renamed fields, schema properties, etc.) labels Jul 17, 2020
@jpmckinney jpmckinney added Schema Relating to other changes in the JSON Schema (renamed fields, schema properties, etc.) and removed Schema: Fields Relating to adding or deprecating fields in the JSON Schema labels Jul 17, 2020
@jpmckinney jpmckinney changed the title Move other blocks to top-level, similar to parties Discussion: Move other blocks to top-level, similar to parties Oct 24, 2020
@mrshll1001
Copy link
Contributor

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
Copy link
Member Author

@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
Copy link
Member

yolile commented Jan 6, 2021

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
Copy link
Member Author

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
Copy link
Member

yolile commented Jan 6, 2021

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

@yolile
Copy link
Member

yolile commented Jan 12, 2021

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
Copy link
Contributor

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
Copy link
Member Author

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discussion Schema Relating to other changes in the JSON Schema (renamed fields, schema properties, etc.)
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants