Capitalization for PrimaryITInvestmentUII is inconsistent

[philipashlock]

The capitalization for PrimaryITInvestmentUII is inconsistent with the rest of the schema.

All other fields in the schema (and DCAT) use lower camel case (first word lowercase and all other words with the first letter capitalized). Based on this field and accessURL there seems to be a convention to maintain capitalization on all abbreviations as well, so I guess that's fine here.

Instead this should be primaryITInvestmentUII

[MarionRoyal]

@philipashlock
I agree that we should be consistent in using lower camel case since the majority of our metadata uses that syntax, especially if we are inventing attributes not found in other namespaces.
I'm not sure what value the acronyms (IT and UII) bring to the business term of primaryInvestment.

[philipashlock]

@MarionRoyal the acronyms come from the guidance on "Exhibits 53 and 300 series" in that they refer to a Unique Investment Identifier (UII) for agency information technology (IT) projects. There's more context and some links on #282 and the original discussion was on #91

[MarionRoyal]

+1

Marion A. Royal
202.302.4634

Sent from PDA

On Mar 4, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Philip Ashlock notifications@github.com wrote:

The capitalization for PrimaryITInvestmentUII is inconsistent with the rest
of the schema.

All other fields in the schema (and DCAT) use lower camel case (first word
lowercase and all other words with the first letter capitalized). Based on
this field and accessURL there seems to be a convention to maintain
capitalization on all abbreviations as well, so I guess that's fine here.

Instead this should be primaryITInvestmentUII

Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/284
.

[gbinal]

+1

[haleyvandyck]

Thanks for catching this @philipashlock. Making this consistent seems logical. We've added this to the list to consider with the next version of the schema. In the meantime, would you mind submitting a pull request? Thanks!

[philipashlock]

As @haleyvandyck's pull request (#344) indicates the plan is to apply this change to the new version of the schema and leave the original 1.0 version untouched.

[gbinal]

Here's what this would look like:

https://gist.github.com/philipashlock/21ff607527863fba200b#file-pod-schema-v1-1-draft-example-json-L43

[gbinal]

This is addressed by 9b15ac4

[gbinal]

Thank you for driving the conversation around this issue and helping to assemble the v1.1 metadata update.

There appears to be strong consensus around this issue, which has been accepted in the v1.1 update and merged into Project Open Data. Project Open Data is a living project though. Please continue any conversations around how the schema can be improved with new issues and pull requests!

It's important for government staff as well as the public to continue to collaborate to make the Open Data Policy ever better. Though the v1.1 update is a substantial update, future iterations do not have to be, so whatever your ideas - big or small - please continue to work with this community to improve how government manages and opens its data.