Review additions to open codelists by extensions
Closed this issue · 14 comments
After review, the new codes can be merged into the standard itself, including:
- ocds_enquiry_extension: partyRole.csv
- ocds_legalBasis_extension: itemClassificationScheme.csv
- ocds_organizationClassification_extension: itemClassificationScheme.csv ('COFOG' only)
- ocds_tariffs_extension: documentType.csv
- ocds_eu_extension
- ocds_ppp_extension
Included for completeness, but not to be merged:
- ocds_procurementMethodRationaleClassifications_extension: itemClassificationScheme.csv (TED-specific)
- ocds_tenderClassification_extension: itemClassificationScheme.csv (TED-specific)
@jpmckinney When they are merged into the standard, the codelists are also removed from the extensions, right?
Yes, they would be removed. We might start tagging releases of extensions, so that OCDS 1.1 users can refer to a version of the extension that contains the codelist.
@jpmckinney What's the benefit of merging the codes from extensions into the standard, but not the schemas?
@jpmckinney May I use this opportunity to sort codes in alphabetical order in the impacted codelists CSVs? I believe it will improve their usability.
I'll do PRs for legalBasis so that we agree on the wording and the procedure, then I'll do the others.
(the case of the enquiry extension was straightforward as it was already implemented in the standard)
@jpmckinney May I use this opportunity to sort codes in alphabetical order in the impacted codelists CSVs? I believe it will improve their usability.
Let's create an issue to do this right before the release of OCDS 1.2.0. If we do it now, it could cause unnecessary merge conflicts.
Also, some codelists have a chronological order (status codelists) or other logical order (e.g. method is ordered by degree of openness). The documentType codelist is also sorted by Category (which maybe we want to remove) and Section.
So, in the new issue, we should describe the appropriate order for each codelist.
There's no rush, I'll take care of this issue when we're closer to release 1.2.
@jpmckinney What's the benefit of merging the codes from extensions into the standard, but not the schemas?
For open codelists, OCDS can add new codes at any time. As such, the only reason to modify the codelists in extensions is if the OCDS process is too slow. Since we're currently upgrading OCDS, we might as well add the codes to OCDS itself.
Adding fields to the schema, however, always requires a minor version, and requires more discussion. That topic is the subject of #1179.
There's no rush, I'll take care of this issue when we're closer to release 1.2.
I think the addition of codes can be done now. The only thing that should wait is the sorting of codes, which deserves its own issue, since it's not related to this issue.
Steps to have two release branches in extension repos:
- branch 1.1 out of master
- make the default branch 1.1 (instead of master)
- create a new 1.2 branch with the new commits
- delete the master branch
Requests to the
masterbranch will return the default branch (1.1) (GitHub returns the default branch for non-existent branches). Once 1.2 is released, we can change the default branch to 1.2, so thatmasterreturns that branch instead. In the meantime, we won't disrupt any users expecting the 1.1 version onmaster.
==> open-contracting-extensions/ocds_legalBasis_extension#6 (comment)
@jpmckinney Do we add codes from the documentType.csv codelist of the ppp extension to the standard? That's 44 codes and the columns differ from the standard codelist. The tariff codes are in it.
That codelist is a bit of a challenge, because it entirely replaces the OCDS codelist (no + at the beginning of the filename), so we need to resolve that in the PPPs profile/extension first, for which I'll involve @duncandewhurst.
That codelist is a bit of a challenge, because it entirely replaces the OCDS codelist (no + at the beginning of the filename), so we need to resolve that in the PPPs profile/extension first, for which I'll involve @duncandewhurst.
Dedicated issue: open-contracting-extensions/public-private-partnerships#253
All the identified open codelists have been processed. OK to close @jpmckinney?