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

Separate the IDS and OCDS mappings #216

Closed
duncandewhurst opened this issue May 5, 2020 · 7 comments · Fixed by #294
Closed

Separate the IDS and OCDS mappings #216

duncandewhurst opened this issue May 5, 2020 · 7 comments · Fixed by #294
Assignees
Labels
documentation This issue relates to the documentation
Milestone

Comments

@duncandewhurst
Copy link
Contributor

The IDS and OCDS mapping is serving two purposes:

  1. Describing how to disclose each element of the CoST IDS using OC4IDS
  2. Describing how to populate an OC4IDS file when you have access to OCDS data

Since those relate to two quite distinct use cases (disclosing data which complies with the CoST IDS and using OCDS data for infrastructure project monitoring) and given the potential for confusion about OC4IDS/OCDS implementation, I think it would be best to separate them.

This will also make it easier to:

  1. Extend the IDS mapping to cover the reactive disclosure elements
  2. Improve the coverage of the OCDS mapping and integrate the improvements/clarifications identified in the course of developing OCDSKit's convert-to-oc4ids feature.

@jpmckinney @LindseyAM @nadinefernz @pindec @yolile @romifz - what do you think?

@duncandewhurst duncandewhurst added the documentation This issue relates to the documentation label May 5, 2020
@pindec
Copy link
Contributor

pindec commented May 5, 2020

Yes, I agree this would be helpful, given the distinct use cases.

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member

Yes, sounds good to me!

@romifz
Copy link
Contributor

romifz commented May 5, 2020

Sounds good for me as well.

@LindseyAM
Copy link

Would like to preserve this mapping of OCDS -> OC4IDS -> CoST IDS

We have a strong use case for its existence in Afghanistan and I can envision more demand for this guidance down the road.

Would propose we have one table that presents IDS -> OC4IDS and then another table that presents OCDS -> OC4IDS -> Cost IDS (accompanied by link and guidance on how to use OCDS KIT to convert).

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member

@LindseyAM Can you clarify the use case in Afghanistan?

@duncandewhurst Are you anticipating any change in the structure of the source CSV files, or only a change in how those files are rendered in the documentation?

If there's no change in structure, then we can have tables rendered with different sets of columns and different column orders, on different pages, to satisfy all use cases.

@duncandewhurst
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think it can be achieved whilst keeping a single source table, but I'll need to work through how to integrate the improvements and clarifications from convert-to-oc4ids to be sure.

@LindseyAM
Copy link

Integrity Watch Afghanistan is advocating for the NPA to become an OC4IDS publisher. NPA agreed but wants to prioritize completing their work on OCDS first. The next thing they are finishing is the tender module of their eGP (and the related OCDS publication). Then, it seems like it would be a good candidate to convert to OC4IDS and fill in the gaps.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation This issue relates to the documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants