-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
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
remove mention of building blocks and blocks from documentation #1660
base: 1.2-dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the style guide needs updating to reflect the agreement in #1347, my understanding of which is that we should use 'sub-schema' when referring to the definitions in the schema and 'object' when referring to their representation in data. That aligns with the sentence that appears at the start of the sub-schema reference in OC4IDS, which explains the relationship between sub-schemas and objects.
Most of my suggested changes are based on that understanding, except where I've suggested replacing 'object' with 'array' in order to align with the types in the schema.
There are two occurrences in documentType.csv (subContract, billOfQuantity) where we can just delete the last clause. If those aren't handled by other PRs or issues, let's fix them here. Noting that use of "block" on two occasions in the Milestone sub-schema will be fixed by #850 |
I've removed the final sentences from both of those codes in documentType as I don't they were being picked up anywhere else |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I started reviewing, but having now read more content using the different available terms, I think we should prefer "field", unless the word "object" or "array" is contributing to the understanding of the sentence. Can you review with that in mind?
We can update the handbook accordingly.
added an issue to the handbook repo to update the style guide open-contracting/standard-development-handbook#285 |
Co-authored-by: James McKinney <[email protected]>
@jpmckinney are you ok with the suggestions in open-contracting/standard-development-handbook#285 (comment), if so I'll redo this PR with those all in mind |
@@ -669,10 +675,10 @@ In OCDS each contracting process can have only one tender stage. There are a num | |||
|
|||
* When one planning process results in many tenders; | |||
* When a contract is awarded following two distinct, but related, tender processes, such as in national frameworks with locally run mini-competitions; | |||
* When a contract results in the award of sub-contracts - and those sub-contracts are also tracked using OCDS; | |||
* When a contract results in the award of subcontracts - and those subcontracts are also tracked using OCDS; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The RelatedProcess reference needs updating per #1713 so I haven't reviewed the changes here.
Co-authored-by: Duncan Dewhurst <[email protected]>
closes #1347
Used primarily "objects" as per the section of the style guide that states
but did use "sub-schema" in a few instances.
There's 2 uses of "block" in the schema itself but they'll be covered by a PR for #850